Politics Thread

[boozehound]

Trump Becoming Disillusioned with the Presidency? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/04/28/trump-now-agrees-with-the-majority-of-americans-he-wasnt-ready-to-be-president/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_notready-750a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.773a0ae74e60)

Article title is a bit much, but some interesting quotes from Trump. I think we all knew this would happen. The question now is, where do we go from here? We are like 100 days in to a 4 year term, if he is getting wistful for his pre-Presidency life already he has a long road ahead. This should still be the honeymoon phase, before the grind really sets in. He has already been spending a ton of time at Mar-a-lago, so I'm not really sure it's possible for him to devote less time/energy to the Presidency than he already has.

Does he just resign at some point before the end of his term?

[GoMuskies]

I don't think anyone is prepared to be president until they've actually been president for a while. If he thought it actually WAS easy after 100 days I'd be more concerned about that. I'm not sure that him being at Mar-a-lago means he's not devoting time/energy to the Presidency. In 2017 it doesn't really matter where the President is physically. He can work from anywhere.

[chico]

I kind of like Patton Oswalt's take on the whole thing.

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=31214

Actually, the website where this link if from is actually pretty entertaining as well, if you enjoy people talking about grammar mistakes on the news and in print, and making up secret languages with your wife.

[Caf]

Of all the things to harp on they choose this? I mean it is looking like the Flynn thing is seriously bad, his tax plan is a joke, and the Pubs are going for round 2 on Obamacare. They should be keeping their focus.

Are you talking about Bloomberg? If so, they have some pretty serious and wide ranging reporting, I don't think they're "harping" on this.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

No mention of Trump's speech in front of the NRA today? I heard firearms were not allowed. It's like maybe having guns at the event might make it less safe. :headscratch:

[Juice]

No mention of Trump's speech in front of the NRA today? I heard firearms were not allowed. It's like maybe having guns at the event might make it less safe. :headscratch:

Fake news https://twitter.com/bob_owens/status/858110113600679936

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Fake news https://twitter.com/bob_owens/status/858110113600679936

So, the secret service was even quoted as saying there would be a no-guns perimeter within the President's speech.

[boozehound]

I don't think anyone is prepared to be president until they've actually been president for a while. If he thought it actually WAS easy after 100 days I'd be more concerned about that. I'm not sure that him being at Mar-a-lago means he's not devoting time/energy to the Presidency. In 2017 it doesn't really matter where the President is physically. He can work from anywhere.

I would agree that nobody is prepared to be President until they have been for a while (although I might argue that people who had previously been Vice President could be pretty well prepared), but I also don't think they they expect it to be easy like Trump seems to have. They go into the job knowing that it is going to be a nightmare, and they devote themselves almost completely.

RE: Mar-a-lago. While I do agree that physical location doesn't matter nearly as much as it used to, I would find it difficult to believe that he is as productive while actively engaged in golfing as he would be at the White House, or somewhere else provided he is not engaging in a leisure activity that takes 4+ hours. I used to golf quite a bit until I had kids and couldn't find the time anymore. It kills a half day, minimum. I can't imagine finding that much time to play golf while being the President of the United States.

[bobbiemcgee]

I don't get the Harrisburg speech. Yeah, we know you won. Yeah, we know you won. Do something!

[GoMuskies]

Do something!

Do you REALLY want that? Really?

I say, please keep holding rallys celebrating your victory. Do NOTHING!

[X-man]

I would agree that nobody is prepared to be President until they have been for a while (although I might argue that people who had previously been Vice President could be pretty well prepared), but I also don't think they they expect it to be easy like Trump seems to have. They go into the job knowing that it is going to be a nightmare, and they devote themselves almost completely.

RE: Mar-a-lago. While I do agree that physical location doesn't matter nearly as much as it used to, I would find it difficult to believe that he is as productive while actively engaged in golfing as he would be at the White House, or somewhere else provided he is not engaging in a leisure activity that takes 4+ hours. I used to golf quite a bit until I had kids and couldn't find the time anymore. It kills a half day, minimum. I can't imagine finding that much time to play golf while being the President of the United States.

I don't. He appears to do virtually nothing related to Presidential activities anywhere, including the WH. It has been extensively reported that he watches a lot of TV though when he is in the WH. Maybe that counts as Presidential activity. But after his latest comments on Andrew Jackson and the Civil War, he might consider watching the History Channel instead of Fox.

[bobbiemcgee]

Jackson was really angry about the Civil War......cuz he was dead.

[Juice]

Jackson was really angry about the Civil War......cuz he was dead.

Jackson did have to deal with threats of secession by South Carolina. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis

And obviously this involved tariffs and not slavery.

I have no idea if Trump was referring to this because the man just rambles a lot but if he did then he's sort of right.

[bobbiemcgee]

Jackson owned a bunch of slaves, so who knows.

[boozehound]

I don't. He appears to do virtually nothing related to Presidential activities anywhere, including the WH. It has been extensively reported that he watches a lot of TV though when he is in the WH. Maybe that counts as Presidential activity. But after his latest comments on Andrew Jackson and the Civil War, he might consider watching the History Channel instead of Fox.

Fair point. I guess the way I'm thinking is that a *normal* President is less productive while golfing. This jackoff doesn't get anything of significance done regardless of where he is. I also agree with GoMuskies' point that we probably don't really want him doing anything, since he seems to understand very little about legislation / governance / the economy / foreign affairs.

[Caf]

Sandy Hook father Leonard Pozner on death threats: ‘I never imagined I’d have to fight for my child’s legacy’ - The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/02/sandy-hook-school-hoax-massacre-conspiracists-victim-father)

A really awful story not necessarily about politics, but I think an important one about the state of misinformation online.


Pozner himself used to be into conspiracy theories. When he lived in Connecticut, he often had to commute to New York and would listen to rightwing radio hosts such as Alex Jones and Michael Savage on the long drives. “I’m self-employed, an entrepreneur. I was always looking for more information so I could get an edge on the next guy, to get a better idea of the geopolitical perspective,” Pozner says. Once he got used to Jones’s “raspy voice” he liked him especially: “Alex Jones appears to think out of the box. He’s entertaining.”
...
Pozner says that, if he hadn’t lost Noah, he might well have believed the pizzagate conspiracy: “I would not have been as immediately dismissive of it, that’s for sure. History books will refer to this period as a time of mass delusion. We weren’t prepared for the internet. We thought the internet would bring all these wonderful things, such as research, medicine, science, an accelerated society of good. But all we did was hold up a mirror to society and we saw how angry, sick and hateful humans can be.”

[GoMuskies]

The Internet DID and HAS brought all the good things Pozner listed (as well as XavierHoops, which I can't believe he omitted). It just hasn't been all good.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

The Internet DID and HAS brought all the good things Pozner listed (as well as XavierHoops, which I can't believe he omitted). It just hasn't been all good.

And that mirrors life perfectly.

[bobbiemcgee]

Great!. Getting raped, battered or abused is now a pre-existing condition.
'Pubs going to WH to celebrate?

[Lloyd Braun]

Great!. Getting raped, battered or abused is now a pre-existing condition.
'Pubs going to WH to celebrate?

"Cases upon cases of beer just rolled into the Capitol on a cart covered in a sheet. Spotted Bud Light peeking out from the sheet" - @ajjaffe

Cheers!

[ChicagoX]

Great!. Getting raped, battered or abused is now a pre-existing condition.
'Pubs going to WH to celebrate?

In its current form, this bill has no chance to pass the Senate. Once it's scored by the CBO, then it will look even worse than it does now.

If this is such a good bill, then why did Republicans in Congress choose to exempt themselves from it?

[bjf123]

If this is such a good bill, then why did Republicans in Congress choose to exempt themselves from it?

Kind of like how the Democrats didn't put Congress into Obamacare?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bobbiemcgee]

Trump said he would not cut Medicare or Medicaid and keep pre-existing. 880 billion cut will go to the rich. What a frickin' Liar we have as President.

[Caf]

Just curious, is any Moderate/Republican mad enough about this not to vote Republican in 2018? A few people I know say this will make them un-register from the GOP because of the change to preexisting conditions, but am unsure how common of a feeling that is.

[boozehound]

Just curious, is any Moderate/Republican mad enough about this not to vote Republican in 2018? A few people I know say this will make them un-register from the GOP because of the change to preexisting conditions, but am unsure how common of a feeling that is.

I probably qualify as a Moderate. I'm also probably a demographic that 'should' be Republican. I am a 34-year old white male with 3 children and a wife that doesn't work, and an income that puts in the top 5% of US households. I live in Ohio.

I have voted Republican probably about 60% of the time, and when I do it is generally based on fiscal policy. I lean toward free-market economic policy and believe that deficit reduction is a critically important issue for the long term health of the USA.

I reject virtually all of the 'social' beliefs that some along with the Republican ideology. I support gay marriage. I support the separation of Church and State. I'm not a climate-change skeptic. I'm not anti-intellectual. I don't personally believe in abortion, but I am pro-choice. While I believe that those are able and willing to pay for it should be able to receive better healthcare, I support a tiered single-payer system that provides good quality healthcare for all Americans.

Here is what it comes down to for me: The current cast of 'Republicans' doesn't seem to care about fiscal responsibility, and if we are going to spend craploads of money I would rather spend it providing people with things like healthcare and investing in next-generation industries than further increasing our lopsided Military spending and subsidizing dying industries like coal. The Republican party started losing me in earnest when they started going to war against things like science and free trade. I also found the glee with which they celebrated their straw man bill to repeal the ACA revolting - it's one thing to oppose a piece of legislation, but it's another thing entirely to celebrate a bill that, if passed, would almost certainly result in millions losing health insurance.

I will not be voting Republican in the mid term elections, and I damn sure won't be voting Republican in the next Presidential election.

[Juice]

Great!. Getting raped, battered or abused is now a pre-existing condition.
'Pubs going to WH to celebrate?

Lie

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/05/06/no-the-gop-health-bill-doesnt-classify-rape-or-sexual-assault-as-a-preexisting-condition/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.1027c81e9054

[Caf]

I probably qualify as a Moderate. I'm also probably a demographic that 'should' be Republican. I am a 34-year old white male with 3 children and a wife that doesn't work, and an income that puts in the top 5% of US households. I live in Ohio.

I have voted Republican probably about 60% of the time, and when I do it is generally based on fiscal policy. I lean toward free-market economic policy and believe that deficit reduction is a critically important issue for the long term health of the USA.

I reject virtually all of the 'social' beliefs that some along with the Republican ideology. I support gay marriage. I support the separation of Church and State. I'm not a climate-change skeptic. I'm not anti-intellectual. I don't personally believe in abortion, but I am pro-choice. While I believe that those are able and willing to pay for it should be able to receive better healthcare, I support a tiered single-payer system that provides good quality healthcare for all Americans.

Here is what it comes down to for me: The current cast of 'Republicans' doesn't seem to care about fiscal responsibility, and if we are going to spend craploads of money I would rather spend it providing people with things like healthcare and investing in next-generation industries than further increasing our lopsided Military spending and subsidizing dying industries like coal. The Republican party started losing me in earnest when they started going to war against things like science and free trade. I also found the glee with which they celebrated their straw man bill to repeal the ACA revolting - it's one thing to oppose a piece of legislation, but it's another thing entirely to celebrate a bill that, if passed, would almost certainly result in millions losing health insurance.

I will not be voting Republican in the mid term elections, and I damn sure won't be voting Republican in the next Presidential election.

I agree with everything you said.

As the dust settles, I think it's starting to look like a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't with the AHCA. The GOP has made the repeal of Obamacare so imperative. The congressman could vote against it and piss off the base and The President, or vote for it and piss off everybody else. I'm sure there are a great deal of people who are pumped about this, but it can't be good for elections. I just don't see people getting excited about the bill, it will be a lot harder to rally around the solution to insurance than it was to rally around repealing Obamacare.

It's still very close, but the majority of Americans now believe the government has a responsibility to ensure healthcare. Ensuring healthcare is absolutely contradictory to conservatism. I don't think they should touch it with a 10 foot pole, as it will always bother a great deal of Americans no matter what they do. It's an effect similar to Democrats and tax reform, it just isn't a politically advantageous pursuit.

[X-man]

I agree with everything you said.

As the dust settles, I think it's starting to look like a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't with the AHCA. The GOP has made the repeal of Obamacare so imperative. The congressman could vote against it and piss off the base and The President, or vote for it and piss off everybody else. I'm sure there are a great deal of people who are pumped about this, but it can't be good for elections. I just don't see people getting excited about the bill, it will be a lot harder to rally around the solution to insurance than it was to rally around repealing Obamacare.

It's still very close, but the majority of Americans now believe the government has a responsibility to ensure healthcare. Ensuring healthcare is absolutely contradictory to conservatism. I don't think they should touch it with a 10 foot pole, as it will always bother a great deal of Americans no matter what they do. It's an effect similar to Democrats and tax reform, it just isn't a politically advantageous pursuit.

Perhaps the most pathetic and dishonest characterization of Trumpcare is the claim that it guarantees everyone access to health insurance. The guarantee of access is no different than claiming everyone has access to a Maserati, or a home in the Hamptons, or an Old Masters painting. The "guarantee" exists only in the sense that no one is prohibited from buying any of these things....so long as they can afford to do so. The difference, of course, is that unlike these other things, health insurance is a necessity to getting access to healthcare which is something everyone but the far right believes is a right for all regardless of income. For Republicans and trump to claim that Trumpcare preserves such access is a bald-face lie, and every voter who believes that healthcare access is a right (like food, housing, and education) should turn out the Republican bastards who voted for this charade.

[XU 87]

who believes that healthcare access is a right (like food, housing, and education) should turn out the Republican bastards who voted for this charade.

If those things are "rights", would it be ok someone broke into your house, ate your food, and slept in your bed, for an indefinite amount of time? If housing is a "right", should we prohibit landlords from evicting tenants who don't pay? Should everyone come to XU for free, since education is a "right"?

[Juice]

Perhaps the most pathetic and dishonest characterization of Trumpcare is the claim that it guarantees everyone access to health insurance. The guarantee of access is no different than claiming everyone has access to a Maserati, or a home in the Hamptons, or an Old Masters painting. The "guarantee" exists only in the sense that no one is prohibited from buying any of these things....so long as they can afford to do so. The difference, of course, is that unlike these other things, health insurance is a necessity to getting access to healthcare which is something everyone but the far right believes is a right for all regardless of income. For Republicans and trump to claim that Trumpcare preserves such access is a bald-face lie, and every voter who believes that healthcare access is a right (like food, housing, and education) should turn out the Republican bastards who voted for this charade.

None of things you are talking about are rights. It's not far right people or Republicans who think that. People who can read the Constitution and its Amendments know they aren't rights.

Would it be nice if everyone had these things? Sure but you don't have a right to these things.

[X-man]

I didn't say these are Constitutional rights. I suggested that most of us believe that in a civilized and wealthy society like the United States, most people (other than the far right and Libertarians) believe that all people have a right to basic living requirements which include food, housing, education, and medical care. In other words, these are things that we collectively believe everyone should have access to (on some basic level) regardless of income. That is why we have welfare programs like food stamps, subsidized housing and education, and Medicaid. I would also submit that even House Republicans, other than the far right Tea Party Freedom caucus...and maybe even some of them, publicly support that proposition. But when they make the claim that Trumpcare insures access to health insurance and therefore access to healthcare, they are lying hypocritical bastards and unworthy of holding positions of leadership in this country.

[X-man]

If those things are "rights", would it be ok someone broke into your house, ate your food, and slept in your bed, for an indefinite amount of time? If housing is a "right", should we prohibit landlords from evicting tenants who don't pay? Should everyone come to XU for free, since education is a "right"?

Give me a f**ing break. Are you that dense? Why does our society subsidize food, housing, education, and healthcare? And under what universe would you interpret a belief that people are entitled to those necessities for living as meaning that they can live anywhere they want, eat anyone's food they choose, go to any school they want, and have all the healthcare they want? Either you continue to be incredibly obtuse, or you just muddy the discussion with red herring interpretations. For your sake, I assume it is the latter.

[XU 87]

You are confusing "rights' with "things we as a society want people to have".

Freedom of speech and religion are "rights". Forcing someone else to pay for your food, shelter and medical care are not rights.

P.S. And I see that you responded to my previous post in your standard fashion, You get mad, yell at your computer and start cussing, and call people names. Well done. I just await for your standard line of "You must lack reading comprehension."

P.P.S. Oops, I left out your calling someone "obtuse".

[X-man]

You are confusing "rights' with "things we as a society want people to have".

Freedom of speech and religion are "rights". Forcing someone else to pay for your food, shelter and medical care are not rights.

I stand corrected. You are obtuse.

[XU 87]

I stand corrected. You are obtuse.

That's not an argument for your position or against mine. Name calling is usually an indication that you have nothing further to say in support of your argument.

Here is a good editorial from Walter Williams which discusses the difference between "rights" and "wishes":

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/02/wishes.html

[X-man]

That's not an argument for your position or against mine. Name calling is usually an indication that you have nothing further to say in support of your argument.

Here is a good editorial from Walter Williams which discusses the difference between "rights" and "wishes":

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/02/wishes.html

Walter Williams is an embarrassment to the economics profession. But let me ask you something...do you believe in any of the US entitlement programs like food stamps, public universities, housing assistance programs, Medicaid? If so, why?

[XU 87]

Walter Williams is an embarrassment to the economics profession. But let me ask you something...do you believe in any of the US entitlement programs like food stamps, public universities, housing assistance programs, Medicaid? If so, why?

We are not discussing whether or not I believe in some sort of public assistance. We are discussing your fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between "rights" and "wishes".

And instead of calling Walter Williams names, could you attempt to refute what he wrote? Like I said, resorting to name calling is indicative of having nothing meaningful to argue. So you resort to "you're obtuse" or "he's an embarrassment" without ever arguing your point.

[paulxu]

We all probably believe that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights.
That forms the basis of many of our amendments and laws. And we use that to create societal support to protect them.
(i.e. police to protect our right to life)

Some countries in their social contracts (in fact most of the industrialized world) have decided they will get all their citizens to join in and provide universal, basic health care benefits. Most do it with a nonprofit administration. Only one is truly "socialized" where the doctors are paid by the government directly (Great Britain).

So, they decided (using our constitutional base) that the "right" to life that includes police protection for each and every citizen, should also include basic health care for each and every citizen.

It's not a stretch to say we couldn't do the same. It might save us a lot of money. The thought process may sound like it's out of left field for many conservative leaning people. But it's been done successfully around the world. Our hodge podge system is a veritable nightmare, and hopefully someday it will be fixed. Not in my lifetime.

[Strange Brew]

We all probably believe that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights.
That forms the basis of many of our amendments and laws. And we use that to create societal support to protect them.
(i.e. police to protect our right to life)

Some countries in their social contracts (in fact most of the industrialized world) have decided they will get all their citizens to join in and provide universal, basic health care benefits. Most do it with a nonprofit administration. Only one is truly "socialized" where the doctors are paid by the government directly (Great Britain).

So, they decided (using our constitutional base) that the "right" to life that includes police protection for each and every citizen, should also include basic health care for each and every citizen.

It's not a stretch to say we couldn't do the same. It might save us a lot of money. The thought process may sound like it's out of left field for many conservative leaning people. But it's been done successfully around the world. Our hodge podge system is a veritable nightmare, and hopefully someday it will be fixed. Not in my lifetime.

Police protection is not a right either. Some of you really need to read the Constitution. Particularly Article 1, Section 8.

[X-man]

We are not discussing whether or not I believe in some sort of public assistance. We are discussing your fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between "rights" and "wishes".

And instead of calling Walter Williams names, could you attempt to refute what he wrote? Like I said, resorting to name calling is indicative of having nothing meaningful.l to argue. So you resort to "you're obtuse" or "he's an embarrassment" without ever arguing your point.
Answer my question, please. My use of the term "rights", as I stated earlier, does not mean Constitutional rights. I would have thought you would understand that rather than confusing the term with "wishes" (I wish I had a Porsche, but I have no right to one, OK?). And my use of the term explains why I support the programs I do. So again, do you support them? And if you do, on what basis? It's not a difficult question to understand.

[X-man]

Police protection is not a right either. Some of you really need to read the Constitution. Particularly Article 1, Section 8.

As usual, more muddying the water and semantics games from Brew. Some day, it would be nice for you to actually engage in a serious discussion without resorting to cute obfuscations.

[Strange Brew]

As usual, more muddying the water and semantics games from Brew. Some day, it would be nice for you to actually engage in a serious discussion without resorting to cute obfuscations.

Um, correctly citing that police protection is not is not a right is a semantics game to you further illustrates your shallow thinking when it comes to these topics. The 2nd amendment gives YOU the right to protect your right to life.

As always. Thanks for playing.

[Caf]

I don't know, or care, about whether or not healthcare is a right.

All I know, is that thanks to The Emergency Medical and Treatment Labor Act people with or without insurance, get medical attention when they really need it. When people need attention they either have insurance, foot the bill if they can, take out massive amounts of debt, foot the bill to to the government+hospitals, or just don't go. That's an obsolete system which is an enormous drag on the economy.

This isn't a question of whether or not people should get healthcare from the government, because they already do. The government can fund it, encourage prevention practices like annual checkups, negotiate lower drug prices, or not and let it ruin some people's lives while paying the bill for others anyway.

[paulxu]

Police protection is not a right either. Some of you really need to read the Constitution. Particularly Article 1, Section 8.

Did you read what I wrote? I didn't say police protection was a right.
I said life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were rights.
Then I noted we as a society decided to support the right to life with the protection a police department affords the citizens.
We also fund a military to protect us. We do a lot of things to support those basic rights. Some of the ideas are enshrined in amendments.

We could, if we so chose, decide to support life with basic health care for all the people. Other countries have.

[Strange Brew]

Did you read what I wrote? I didn't say police protection was a right.
I said life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were rights.
Then I noted we as a society decided to support the right to life with the protection a police department affords the citizens.
We also fund a military to protect us. We do a lot of things to support those basic rights. Some of the ideas are enshrined in amendments.

We could, if we so chose, decide to support life with basic health care for all the people. Other countries have.

Your local society created the police to enforce the laws passed by representatives at many levels. Your local gov't or your state could also create a healthcare system. If you'd like the Feds to do so you could ask your Federal representative to propose an Amendment to the Constitution. If it passed it would then truly represent the majority of citizens granting that power away from the people and the states to the Feds.

Edit: Funding for the military is in the part of Constitution I mentioned. Police and healthcare are not.

[paulxu]

The federal government empowered the FBI across state lines, the military nation wide, etc.
It wouldn't take a constitutional amendment to create universal health care.
Just look at how other countries have done it.

[Strange Brew]

The federal government empowered the FBI across state lines, the military nation wide, etc.
It wouldn't take a constitutional amendment to create universal health care.
Just look at how other countries have done it.

The military is used throughout the country? That's terrifying and against the law (Google the Posse Comitatus Act for more info) unless you mean the National Gaird which is used at the discretion of the Governor of each state. Maybe it wouldn't require an amendment but it should since it is a large transfer of individual liberty (you know that thing mentioned along with the right to life) and the right to freedom of association.

Frankly, I don't give a rat's behind what other countries have done. Most of them don't allow for the freedoms we have in this country.

[paulxu]

Nice. I'm quite sure you know I meant the military protects the entire country. And they sure are based all over the country.

And you ignored the point I was making that we could decide, collectively, to support the idea of "promoting the general Welfare" create a health care system for all. You don't give a rat's behind about those other countries, but they may be onto something.

[Juice]

Nice. I'm quite sure you know I meant the military protects the entire country. And they sure are based all over the country.

And you ignored the point I was making that we could decide, collectively, to support the idea of "promoting the general Welfare" create a health care system for all. You don't give a rat's behind about those other countries, but they may be onto something.

Great. You want that. Others like myself do not. I think doing anything "collectively" is bullshit (obviously there are exceptions). You want a large government and other want a limited one. That's why we have elections.

[Strange Brew]

Nice. I'm quite sure you know I meant the military protects the entire country. And they sure are based all over the country.

And you ignored the point I was making that we could decide, collectively, to support the idea of "promoting the general Welfare" create a health care system for all. You don't give a rat's behind about those other countries, but they may be onto something.

Providing a commmon defense and promoting the General Welfare are defined by Article 1, Section 2. Healthcare is not mentioned so we should add an Amendment if that's the route the vast majority and not just a little less than half of the collective wants to go.

[Caf]

Providing a commmon defense and promoting the General Welfare are defined by Article 1, Section 2. Healthcare is not mentioned so we should add an Amendment if that's the route the vast majority and not just a little less than half of the collective wants to go.

I'm glad we cleared that up! Thanks Brew!

[Caf]

We all probably believe that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights.
That forms the basis of many of our amendments and laws. And we use that to create societal support to protect them.
(i.e. police to protect our right to life)

Some countries in their social contracts (in fact most of the industrialized world) have decided they will get all their citizens to join in and provide universal, basic health care benefits. Most do it with a nonprofit administration. Only one is truly "socialized" where the doctors are paid by the government directly (Great Britain).

So, they decided (using our constitutional base) that the "right" to life that includes police protection for each and every citizen, should also include basic health care for each and every citizen.

It's not a stretch to say we couldn't do the same. It might save us a lot of money. The thought process may sound like it's out of left field for many conservative leaning people. But it's been done successfully around the world. Our hodge podge system is a veritable nightmare, and hopefully someday it will be fixed. Not in my lifetime.

Can you flush this out?

[X-man]

Did you read what I wrote? I didn't say police protection was a right.
I said life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were rights.
Then I noted we as a society decided to support the right to life with the protection a police department affords the citizens.
We also fund a military to protect us. We do a lot of things to support those basic rights. Some of the ideas are enshrined in amendments.

We could, if we so chose, decide to support life with basic health care for all the people. Other countries have.

Brew either can't read or is unable to understand what is being said. As Trump would say...SAD!!!

[LA Muskie]

You are confusing "rights' with "things we as a society want people to have".

Freedom of speech and religion are "rights". Forcing someone else to pay for your food, shelter and medical care are not rights.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Strange Brew]

Brew either can't read or is unable to understand what is being said. As Trump would say...SAD!!!

I understand it and reject the argument that b/c we have police at the local and state level we should have a national healthcare system. Again, thanks for playing.

[paulxu]

I understand it and reject the argument that b/c we have police at the local and state level we should have a national healthcare system. Again, thanks for playing.

That wasn't the argument.

[X-man]

That wasn't the argument.

Thanks, Paul. Either Brew is incredibly dense or he just won't participate in a discussion about what obligations we as members of society have to each other. It is possible that he really believes that the only thing government should do is protect life and private property, but I doubt it. So I cannot "thank him for playing" because he won't actually play. It would be instructive though to have XU87 (and Brew) answer my earlier question as to whether they believe in society insuring that everyone have access to food, shelter, education, and healthcare (e.g. via programs like food stamps, housing subsidies, public schools and universities, and Medicaid). If not, simply say so and we all know where they are coming from. But if so, on what basis because the "rights" vs "wishes" becomes a straw man in this discussion.

[paulxu]

Can you flush this out?

Here's a brief overview that might be instructive.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/images/publications/fund-report/2014/june/davis_mirror_2014_es1_for_web.jpg?h=511&w=740&la=en

A more detailed analysis can be found here.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/files/publications/fund-report/2016/jan/1857_mossialos_intl_profiles_2015_v7.pdf

[boozehound]

I don't know, or care, about whether or not healthcare is a right.

All I know, is that thanks to The Emergency Medical and Treatment Labor Act people with or without insurance, get medical attention when they really need it. When people need attention they either have insurance, foot the bill if they can, take out massive amounts of debt, foot the bill to to the government+hospitals, or just don't go. That's an obsolete system which is an enormous drag on the economy.

This isn't a question of whether or not people should get healthcare from the government, because they already do. The government can fund it, encourage prevention practices like annual checkups, negotiate lower drug prices, or not and let it ruin some people's lives while paying the bill for others anyway.

I agree. We are providing worse care than much of Western Europe at a substantially higher cost (see Paul's chart). It seems obvious to me that we need to fix it. We can do better.

[Strange Brew]

The
Thanks, Paul. Either Brew is incredibly dense or he just won't participate in a discussion about what obligations we as members of society have to each other. It is possible that he really believes that the only thing government should do is protect life and private property, but I doubt it. So I cannot "thank him for playing" because he won't actually play. It would be instructive though to have XU87 (and Brew) answer my earlier question as to whether they believe in society insuring that everyone have access to food, shelter, education, and healthcare (e.g. via programs like food stamps, housing subsidies, public schools and universities, and Medicaid). If not, simply say so and we all know where they are coming from. But if so, on what basis because the "rights" vs "wishes" becomes a straw man in this discussion.

The obligations we share as a society are outlined by the Constitution. Yes, I believe every US citizen should have access to all those things you mentioned (they do) however I don't believe we should force people to pay for other people's life indefinitely.

[SemajParlor]

Yeesh, even Trump thinks universal healthcare is great.

[SemajParlor]

I saw a garter snake in my lawn the other day sliver by. Think I'm going to name him Paul Ryan. ba doom tiish!

[Caf]

The obligations we share as a society are outlined by the Constitution. Yes, I believe every US citizen should have access to all those things you mentioned (they do) however I don't believe we should force people to pay for other people's life indefinitely.

You're lying to yourself. We are forced to pay for other people's life indefinitely already. Unless you'd rather let medical professionals turn away people, this will forever be the reality.

[SemajParlor]

You're lying to yourself. We are forced to pay for other people's life indefinitely already. Unless you'd rather let medical professionals turn away people, this will forever be the reality.

No. I hate the sick and the elderly. Jokes on them.

[Juice]

Here's a brief overview that might be instructive.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/images/publications/fund-report/2014/june/davis_mirror_2014_es1_for_web.jpg?h=511&w=740&la=en

A more detailed analysis can be found here.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/files/publications/fund-report/2016/jan/1857_mossialos_intl_profiles_2015_v7.pdf

I'm going to call bullshit on a study by an organization who's stated purpose is "to "promote a high performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society's most vulnerable and the elderly." It's headed by a guy who has worked for Dukakis and Obama.

[Caf]

I'm going to call bullshit on a study by an organization who's stated purpose is "to "promote a high performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society's most vulnerable and the elderly." It's headed by a guy who has worked for Dukakis and Obama.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/u-s-health-care-system-ranks-as-one-of-the-least-efficient

You cool with Bloomberg? Too biased? World Health Organization has some too.

If you can find me a list that has the US on top in a positive fashion I'll PayPal you $1.

[SemajParlor]

I'm sick of the elitist blue states forcing me to pay for people's lives.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

[Juice]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/u-s-health-care-system-ranks-as-one-of-the-least-efficient

You cool with Bloomberg? Too biased? World Health Organization has some too.

If you can find me a list that has the US on top in a positive fashion I'll PayPal you $1.


The index reflects the first full year of Obamacare. While the U.S. Affordable Care Act expanded access to health insurance and provided payment subsidies starting on Jan. 1, 2014, its impact on life expectancy will take a while to gauge. That’s partly because health care isn’t the only influence on longevity.

“It has to do with how we eat, how we live, poverty and inequality, social support,” said Jon Oberlander, a professor of health policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine.

So their study is partly based on life expectancy and they admit that health care isn't the only factor? So it's actually not a study of health care at all.

[LA Muskie]

The

The obligations we share as a society are outlined by the Constitution. Yes, I believe every US citizen should have access to all those things you mentioned (they do) however I don't believe we should force people to pay for other people's life indefinitely.

I'm sorry, but "access" is a meaningless term. And I think you know that. Also, our Constitution is not our only guiding document. The Declaration of Independence, while not a governing document, sets forth the guiding principles of our union.

[Caf]

So their study is partly based on life expectancy and they admit that health care isn't the only factor? So it's actually not a study of health care at all.

So now we're splitting hairs over studies vs. indexes. Pretty solid argument you got there, huh?

[paulxu]

I'm going to call bullshit on a study by an organization who's stated purpose is "to "promote a high performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society's most vulnerable and the elderly."

Good point. We certainly don't want anyone promoting those things. That would be, well...Christian.

[Caf]

Good point. We certainly don't want anyone promoting those things. That would be, well...Christian.

Wait they promote healthcare for the vulnerable? Disgusting!

[Juice]

Good point. We certainly don't want anyone promoting those things. That would be, well...Christian.

Oh no you got me, I'm a shitty Christian. You're a better Christian than me. Shit....

Wait, I though there was a separation of Church and State, this is a melting pot of race, cultures, and religions, etc. etc.

And you can still be a Christian and want a limited government. But when the government is your religion, I guess not.

[paulxu]

Really? Separation of Church and State?
I agree with you on that. Health care has nothing to do with religion; although most believe in helping the less fortunate.

How happy are you then with the new law that will let preachers politic without losing their tax exempt status?

[Juice]

Really? Separation of Church and State?
I agree with you on that. Health care has nothing to do with religion; although most believe in helping the less fortunate.

How happy are you then with the new law that will let preachers politic without losing their tax exempt status?

That's why people donate money to charities, organizations, etc. to help with these things.

Religion overall is pretty dumb. I think it's a personal matter that people push onto others.

But on the flip side, the government forces a lot of people to go against their own religious beliefs because someone got all pissy about something. For example, the gay couple and the bakery story is dumb for both sides. Gay people shouldn't offend/disgust Christians but why the f*ck didn't the couple just buy the cake from somewhere else? If you know they're possible bigots, why the hell would you give them business? Another example is the Hobby Lobby case. Everyone got on Hobby Lobby's shit because they hate women and their right to choose and force pregnancies on them, and fill in what other bullshit people said. Hobby Lobby gave it's employees 16 options of contraceptives and didn't want to offer 4!. And yet Hobby Lobby is painted as the unreasonable ones. And they didn't stop their employees from purchasing it on their own dime.

To summarize, people use religion in this country when it's convenient for their political arguments. So you arguing the Christian angle has no effect on me.

[Caf]

That's why people donate money to charities, organizations, etc. to help with these things.

Religion overall is pretty dumb. I think it's a personal matter that people push onto others.

But on the flip side, the government forces a lot of people to go against their own religious beliefs because someone got all pissy about something. For example, the gay couple and the bakery story is dumb for both sides. Gay people shouldn't offend/disgust Christians but why the f*ck didn't the couple just buy the cake from somewhere else? If you know they're possible bigots, why the hell would you give them business? Another example is the Hobby Lobby case. Everyone got on Hobby Lobby's shit because they hate women and their right to choose and force pregnancies on them, and fill in what other bullshit people said. Hobby Lobby gave it's employees 16 options of contraceptives and didn't want to offer 4!. And yet Hobby Lobby is painted as the unreasonable ones. And they didn't stop their employees from purchasing it on their own dime.

To summarize, people use religion in this country when it's convenient for their political arguments. So you arguing the Christian angle has no effect on me.

Juice, let's cut through this garbage. What do you think people who cannot afford private insurance or don't get it from work should ideally do when they need health care? What options should they have?

[SemajParlor]

what do you think people who cannot afford private insurance or don't get it from work should ideally do when they need health care? What options should they have?

Snowflake! This basic desire for human decency is why Trump won!

[GoMuskies]

Snowflake! This basic desire for human decency is why Trump won!

Do we have a barfing emoticon here?

[SemajParlor]

Do we have a barfing emoticon here?

Let me have my trolling fun you coastal elitist!

[SemajParlor]

Big uptick in America believing it can be great again. Trumps approval rating is now at 39 percent from last reports 34 percent.

[Caf]

Do we have a barfing emoticon here?

:sick::sick::sick::sick:

This is the closest I could find. I sure hope that emoji has insurance!

[waggy]

Subsequent the crash in 2008 I lost everything. I was unemployed, then underempolyed. Now I'm working full time, but my income is not close to what it once was. I won't quote numbers, because it's a little embarrassing, but I'm low income and can't afford insurance. And my employer can't afford to offer it. Last year I applied for the ACA government subsidized bullshit. My experience/feeling is that the providers aren't really interested in providing care for persons like me. I had difficulty even finding a provider, and then never did find a doctor in the network that would see me, except for one I didn't want to go to. I broke my foot, which spurred the whole thing. I ended up buying a walking boot and hoping for the best. I only have to drag my leg a little now (j/k). The system is crap if you ask me, and i tried to use it.

So taxes this year.. I was enrolled in the healthcare program for 6 months. For those 6 months I was considered to have insurance. But for the other 6 I didn't have insurance, it was a penalty of $57/month. So $300+ taken from my return.

It's just another form of taxation.

Awesome system. And Fuck YOU.

[Caf]

Subsequent the crash in 2008 I lost everything. I was unemployed, then underempolyed. Now I'm working full time, but my income is not close to what it once was. I won't quote numbers, because it's a little embarrassing, but I'm low income and can't afford insurance. And my employer can't afford to offer it. Last year I applied for the ACA government subsidized bullshit. My experience/feeling is that the providers aren't really interested in providing care for persons like me. I had difficulty even finding a provider, and then never did find a doctor in the network that would see me, except for one I didn't want to go to. I broke my foot, which spurred the whole thing. I ended up buying a walking boot and hoping for the best. I only have to drag my leg a little now (j/k). The system is crap if you ask me, and i tried to use it.

So taxes this year.. I was enrolled in the healthcare program for 6 months. For those 6 months I was considered to have insurance. But for the other 6 I didn't have insurance, it was a penalty of $57/month. So $300+ taken from my return.

It's just another form of taxation.

Awesome system. And Fuck YOU.

ACA sucks. All of the problems you listed about the ACA are real, but all of them were worse before ACA. Providers wouldn't be interested in providing you care under AHCA and it wouldn't be affordable if they were. However, the system is crap because it was never fully enacted. Insurance works best with a wide and deep user base. Further mandate people be in the system, allow the FDA to negotiate prices with drug companies, and allow people to buy insurance across state lines and I think it has a chance.

The ACA penalty totally sucks, but if it was going to work it was necessary and probably would have to be even more. I got crushed by it. Took a temp job for half the year that offered a terrible plan I couldn't afford, so I rolled the dice and turned it down. The penalty is worse if your employer offered a plan, so that was a cool $500, which turned a return into a payment.

[waggy]

ACA sucks. All of the problems you listed about the ACA are real, but all of them were worse before ACA..

Not sure if you're apologizing for this system. But whatever, I'm not buying what's being sold. I'm low income and I have to shell out more, for worthlessness. I could maybe justify it if the system works, and it probably does for some, but that's not my personal experience.

[boozehound]

So their study is partly based on life expectancy and they admit that health care isn't the only factor? So it's actually not a study of health care at all.

I think this is a fair point, however I'm not sure that there are a lot of studies out here that don't rank the US below much of Western Europe in terms of healthcare. The wild card is our unhealthy lifestyle, which impacts many of the statistics uses to evaluate healthcare. It's hard to completely unravel that from any study on healthcare. I also will agree that longevity isn't a great measure of healthcare quality, and is a more accurate measure of total lifestyle. It's also a fact that we spend more per capita. When you combine those factors (I think) it's hard not to see a system in need of significant reform.

[Caf]

Not sure if you're apologizing for this system. But whatever, I'm not buying what's being sold. I'm low income and I have to shell out more, for worthlessness. I could maybe justify it if the system works, and it probably does for some, but that's not my personal experience.

Apologizing? I'm acknowledging that it's a bad program, but that it's an improvement. Under ACA you had a shot at coverage, even though it was a bad one. Some people got it when they needed it and it worked. However, under the old system, and the proposed AHCA, you still wouldn't have gotten coverage and neither would have the others that it worked for. The only difference is you would have saved money on taxes. The lack of doctor options is seriously messed up. Looking back it's insane they didn't have a solution for that. It would have made an enormous difference.

[X-man]

Juice, let's cut through this garbage. What do you think people who cannot afford private insurance or don't get it from work should ideally do when they need health care? What options should they have?

The silence is deafening whenever you ask such question from posters supporting Trumpcare. I am still waiting for a response from XU87, and I'm guessing you will have the same experience trying to get an answer from Juice.

[Caf]

The silence is deafening whenever you ask such question from posters supporting Trumpcare. I am still waiting for a response from XU87, and I'm guessing you will have the same experience trying to get an answer from Juice.

I've said it a number of times, but what I find confounding is the "We shouldn't force people to pay for others' insurance." argument, because we already do. If someone absolutely needs healthcare, they get it. That's a simple fact. So why not do that more efficiently and effectively?

[boozehound]

I've said it a number of times, but what I find confounding is the "We shouldn't force people to pay for others' insurance." argument, because we already do. If someone absolutely needs healthcare, they get it. That's a simple fact. So why not do that more efficiently and effectively?

A lot of people are getting their information from politicians who are being paid millions of dollars by the health insurance industry to support their profitability. Single payer would almost eliminate health insurance.

[XU 87]

The silence is deafening whenever you ask such question from posters supporting Trumpcare. I am still waiting for a response from XU87, and I'm guessing you will have the same experience trying to get an answer from Juice.

I raised the issue of what are "rights' and what are "wishes". That topic was apparently a little too intellectual for you since you gave no response to this topic, and consistent with your past practice, instead resorted to calling me names and then you tried to change the topic.

If you respond to this post, I again request that you do so without yelling at your computer or calling me names.

[X-man]

I raised the issue of what are "rights' and what are "wishes". That topic was apparently a little too intellectual for you since you gave no response to this topic, and consistent with your past practice, instead resorted to calling me names and then you tried to change the topic.

If you respond to this post, I again request that you do so without yelling at your computer or calling me names.

See post 1290. But I will spell it out for you. I believe that we, as a society, have an obligation to insure that all members of society have their basic needs met with respect to food, housing, education, and healthcare. These are not Constitutional rights, as I stated in another earlier post, but rather rights as members of our society...entitlements, if you prefer. Now will you answer my question....do you believe that we have an obligation to all members of our society with respect to these basic needs? And if so, what is the basis for your position? And if not, just say so and we will all know exactly where you stand. But if you say yes, know also that you are admitting the bankruptcy in the "access" position taken by House Republicans who are supporting Trumpcare.

[XU 87]

Wow, you wrote all that without getting mad or calling me names. Well done.

My intent was not to get into a lengthy discussion on this board re: the role of government in people's lives. Needless to say, I believe in limited government with limited interference in people's lives.

[X-man]

Wow, you wrote all that without getting mad or calling me names. Well done.

My intent was not to get into a lengthy discussion on this board re: the role of government in people's lives. Needless to say, I believe in limited government with limited interference in people's lives.

So what is your position with respect to government programs giving our least well off access to food, shelter, education, and healthcare? I still don't see an answer to that question. And if your answer is "yes", on what basis?

[Juice]

The silence is deafening whenever you ask such question from posters supporting Trumpcare. I am still waiting for a response from XU87, and I'm guessing you will have the same experience trying to get an answer from Juice.

Jesus dude. Some of us have a life outside of dealing with your ass.

1) I don't support Trumpcare, and I didn't vote for Trump. I don't support Obamacare either.
2) Very short answer. Increase competition. Open up insurance across state borders. Less government oversight. Tax deductions for health care spending. Shit like that so costs decrease for everyone so when poor people or people who don't get insurance through work have to get care that when the government/other people have to cover their shit, it's not as much.

[Juice]

I've said it a number of times, but what I find confounding is the "We shouldn't force people to pay for others' insurance." argument, because we already do. If someone absolutely needs healthcare, they get it. That's a simple fact. So why not do that more efficiently and effectively?

Because you think it's more efficiently and effective while others do not.

[Caf]

Jesus dude. Some of us have a life outside of dealing with your ass.

1) I don't support Trumpcare, and I didn't vote for Trump. I don't support Obamacare either.
2) Very short answer. Increase competition. 1. Open up insurance across state borders. 2. Less government oversight. 3. Tax deductions for health care spending. 4. Shit like that so costs decrease for everyone so when poor people or people who don't get insurance through work have to get care that when the government/other people have to cover their shit, it's not as much.

1. This is already enacted. States have the authority to sanction sales across state lines as mandated by section 1333 of Obamacare. Five States already offer it. Georgia has allowed it since 2011 and 0 companies have chose to do so. The only time it would be advantageous was if the states had varied consumer protection laws and health regulation. Also, insurance is by nature local. To succeed, insurance companies need a significant toe-hold with hospitals and other providers in their local market; an out-of-state insurer would lack that.

2. What do you mean by this? Deregulate insurance? How?

3. That's just simply not how any of this works. The only serious way to decrease costs is to decrease drug costs. The only way to do this is through government intervention. Either in negotiating with drug companies on behalf of the entire public, limiting the number or duration of patents, or getting the FDA to loosen drug requirements. The last one is a bad idea for obvious reasons.

[Caf]

Jesus dude. Some of us have a life outside of dealing with your ass.

1) I don't support Trumpcare, and I didn't vote for Trump. I don't support Obamacare either.
2) Very short answer. Increase competition. 1. Open up insurance across state borders. 2. Less government oversight. 3. Tax deductions for health care spending. 4. Shit like that so costs decrease for everyone so when poor people or people who don't get insurance through work have to get care that when the government/other people have to cover their shit, it's not as much.

Your last line is really a doozie. A huge part of government subsidized insurance is helping the government and tax payers pay less by having more people contribute to the pool and assisting in prevention. When people have access to check ups, clinics, etc. we prevent major medical intervention and ER visits. You talk about insurance like it's this mythical realm we can't comprehend. Insurance is a pretty simple business model. Everyone pitches in so no one gets sunk. It works for massive companies, it could work for the country.

[X-man]

Your last line is really a doozie. A huge part of government subsidized insurance is helping the government and tax payers pay less by having more people contribute to the pool and assisting in prevention. When people have access to check ups, clinics, etc. we prevent major medical intervention and ER visits. You talk about insurance like it's this mythical realm we can't comprehend. Insurance is a pretty simple business model. Everyone pitches in so no one gets sunk. It works for massive companies, it could work for the country.

And in fact it does work in other countries, as the data cited earlier in this thread so clearly shows.

[Juice]

Your last line is really a doozie. A huge part of government subsidized insurance is helping the government and tax payers pay less by having more people contribute to the pool and assisting in prevention. When people have access to check ups, clinics, etc. we prevent major medical intervention and ER visits. You talk about insurance like it's this mythical realm we can't comprehend. Insurance is a pretty simple business model. Everyone pitches in so no one gets sunk. It works for massive companies, it could work for the country.

For one, don't tie it all to employment.

And that didn't work because young people weren't signing up to pay for old and shitty people. Premiums were going up for everyone.

[Caf]

For one, don't tie it all to employment.

And that didn't work because young people weren't signing up to pay for old and shitty people. Premiums were going up for everyone.

Again, ACA is extremely flawed. What you pointed out is correct. However, it's not because young people didn't want to pay for "shitty people", it was because the penalty was cheaper than insurance. The more people made that choice, the more expensive premiums got.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Again, ACA is extremely flawed. What you pointed out is correct. However, it's not because young people didn't want to pay for "shitty people", it was because the penalty was cheaper than insurance. The more people made that choice, the more expensive premiums got.

I thought it was pretty much understood that the ACA was flawed. That if all states implemented everything associated with the act that it would have been a lot better, if the Pubs would have allowed the government option that would have also helped.

Scrapping the ACA and heading back to fully private health insurance isn't a solution its going back to a more broken system.

I forget who posted it, but the way insurance works is absolutely funding a system that is there for you. If you are 16, just get on insurance, 2 months later total your car, that insurance should be there for you. You don't just get the amount you put in.

[Caf]

I thought it was pretty much understood that the ACA was flawed. That if all states implemented everything associated with the act that it would have been a lot better, if the Pubs would have allowed the government option that would have also helped.

Scrapping the ACA and heading back to fully private health insurance isn't a solution its going back to a more broken system.

I forget who posted it, but the way insurance works is absolutely funding a system that is there for you. If you are 16, just get on insurance, 2 months later total your car, that insurance should be there for you. You don't just get the amount you put in.

Exactly. The entire point of insurance is "paying for someone else" and vice versa.

[Juice]

Exactly. The entire point of insurance is "paying for someone else" and vice versa.

Yeah but there is a difference between paying for soemeone else who is also paying into it but receives more for whatever his or her health issues may be and those who don't have any skin in the game.

[Caf]

Yeah but there is a difference between paying for soemeone else who is also paying into it but receives more for whatever his or her health issues may be and those who don't have any skin in the game.

You're paying for those people already! You can keep stomping your feet, but the problem will still persist. If you only want to pay for people who have skin in the game, you have to be willing to let people die. That's the only way.

Or, move to a system where everyone has, everyone pays, and costs go down. Tough choice.

[SemajParlor]

So how are we spinning this new one?

[Lloyd Braun]

So how are we spinning this new one?

He's lucky he is alive?

[GoMuskies]

He's lucky he is alive?

It IS pretty amazing Hillary never had him Vincent Fostered.

[Juice]

So how are we spinning this new one?

That this is really a cover up of Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner breaking the law.

[Strange Brew]

See post 1290. But I will spell it out for you. I believe that we, as a society, have an obligation to insure that all members of society have their basic needs met with respect to food, housing, education, and healthcare. These are not Constitutional rights, as I stated in another earlier post, but rather rights as members of our society...entitlements, if you prefer. Now will you answer my question....do you believe that we have an obligation to all members of our society with respect to these basic needs? And if so, what is the basis for your position? And if not, just say so and we will all know exactly where you stand. But if you say yes, know also that you are admitting the bankruptcy in the "access" position taken by House Republicans who are supporting Trumpcare.

Wow, saw the flash from this virtue signal in Denver. Well done. I'll ask YOU a simple question; how much of YOUR income are you willing to pay to achieve your ideal society? 60%? 90%?. I'm curious because you can easily overpay your obligation to the Treasury. Unless you FEEL charity is accomplished though others fulfilling your design for society?

[X-man]

Wow, saw the flash from this virtue signal in Denver. Well done. I'll ask YOU a simple question; how much of YOUR income are you willing to pay to achieve your ideal society? 60%? 90%?. I'm curious because you can easily overpay your obligation to the Treasury. Unless you FEEL charity is accomplished though others fulfilling your design for society?

As usual, you show how little you learned from your econ classes with your post. Charitable giving, like a lot of other things (e.g. a company who on their own limits carbon emissions because of concerns about climate warming), is a "public good" . This means not only can people free ride on the actions of others, but they also get no benefit from their actions unless others do it as well. So no one has any incentive to do what everyone possibly wants. Hence nothing happens even though collectively we may want it to. You may want to "study up" on your economics theory before spouting more nonsense.

[Caf]

So how are we spinning this new one?

So far it's, "The Dems didn't like him either!"

[boozehound]

That this is really a cover up of Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner breaking the law.

Are you joking, or are you serious? I don't care which side of the aisle you are on this should be of MAJOR concern to almost anybody outside of Trump's inner circle. You just can't fire the Director of the FBI while he is investigating you and your campaign. I don't necessarily think that firing Comey in and of itself is a big deal, but you have to wait until the investigation has concluded. A trend is starting to emerge in which Trump is removing people that are investigating him and his people. We shouldn't tolerate that shit in America.

[boozehound]

Wow, saw the flash from this virtue signal in Denver. Well done. I'll ask YOU a simple question; how much of YOUR income are you willing to pay to achieve your ideal society? 60%? 90%?. I'm curious because you can easily overpay your obligation to the Treasury. Unless you FEEL charity is accomplished though others fulfilling your design for society?

I don't see what one person overpaying his obligation would accomplish. It's not like it would change policy.

One thing that I think often gets lost in the healthcare debate is the fact that the amount we pay in premiums is substantial to the average American, and could cover a modestly large increase in income taxes, particularly for middle income Americans.

Consider the following: My health insurance costs about $500 per month for an 80/20 PPO plan. My company has pretty good insurance and shares a good portion of the cost, so I don't pay as much as many others, but let's use that $500/mo as a benchmark.

If you make $240K per year that $500/mo amounts to 2.5% of gross monthly income ($20,000/$500). It's a pretty small percentage that isn't likely to be significant to that person't budget. Now let's say that you make closer to (but slightly above) the average income at $60K. Now that $500 monthly premium is 10% of your gross monthly income. That's pretty significant.

In that scenario average Americans could incur a 10% increase in income taxes and still net out neutral. A 10% increase would be MASSIVE, and I'm certainly not advocating for that, but I think it's an interesting data point when people complain about taxes, but then fail to consider other obligations that would be reduced / erased.

Personally, I'm OK with paying a couple of extra points to cover health care for those less fortunate than me. I understand that not everybody feels that way, but that is my perspective. I also believe there is a significant pooled risk benefit to single payer that would substantially reduce costs, as well as a benefit from increased preventative care. I also don't believe in the current 'healthcare lottery' in which people who have been doing everything right have a child come down with cancer and are bankrupted.

I do believe in the value of competition, and I believe that being poor should be substantially worse than being wealthy. Society needs competition, and in many cases people need to be uncomfortable to truly push them to better themselves. I just happen to believe that healthcare should be exempted from that.

[Strange Brew]

As usual, you show how little you learned from your econ classes with your post. Charitable giving, like a lot of other things (e.g. a company who on their own limits carbon emissions because of concerns about climate warming), is a "public good" . This means not only can people free ride on the actions of others, but they also get no benefit from their actions unless others do it as well. So no one has any incentive to do what everyone possibly wants. Hence nothing happens even though collectively we may want it to. You may want to "study up" on your economics theory before spouting more nonsense.

Total garbage and deflection as usual. What society TRULY wants is reflected in their individual choices (not their cute, pathetic and hypocritical virtue signaling). Answer the question. How much of your income are you willing to pay to acheive the societal goals YOU personally wish to be rights?

[Strange Brew]

I don't see what one person overpaying his obligation would accomplish. It's not like it would change policy.

One thing that I think often gets lost in the healthcare debate is the fact that the amount we pay in premiums is substantial to the average American, and could cover a modestly large increase in income taxes, particularly for middle income Americans.

Consider the following: My health insurance costs about $500 per month for an 80/20 PPO plan. My company has pretty good insurance and shares a good portion of the cost, so I don't pay as much as many others, but let's use that $500/mo as a benchmark.

If you make $240K per year that $500/mo amounts to 2.5% of gross monthly income ($20,000/$500). It's a pretty small percentage that isn't likely to be significant to that person't budget. Now let's say that you make closer to (but slightly above) the average income at $60K. Now that $500 monthly premium is 10% of your gross monthly income. That's pretty significant.

In that scenario average Americans could incur a 10% increase in income taxes and still net out neutral. A 10% increase would be MASSIVE, and I'm certainly not advocating for that, but I think it's an interesting data point when people complain about taxes, but then fail to consider other obligations that would be reduced / erased.

Personally, I'm OK with paying a couple of extra points to cover health care for those less fortunate than me. I understand that not everybody feels that way, but that is my perspective. I also believe there is a significant pooled risk benefit to single payer that would substantially reduce costs, as well as a benefit from increased preventative care. I also don't believe in the current 'healthcare lottery' in which people who have been doing everything right have a child come down with cancer and are bankrupted.

I do believe in the value of competition, and I believe that being poor should be substantially worse than being wealthy. Society needs competition, and in many cases people need to be uncomfortable to truly push them to better themselves. I just happen to believe that healthcare should be exempted from that.

This is pretty reasonable except your assertion that 2.5% of someone's monthly budget isn't significant to that person. Who are YOU to determine that? What is their cost of living? How many kids do they have? What is their definition of The Pursuit of Happiness?

I think it's awesome you're willing to pay a couple of bucks to the govt. Would you be willing to pay an extra 10% for single payer?

[boozehound]

This is pretty reasonable except your assertion that 2.5% of someone's monthly budget isn't significant to that person. Who are YOU to determine that? What is their cost of living? How many kids do they have? What is their definition of The Pursuit of Happiness?

I think it's awesome you're willing to pay a couple of bucks to the govt. Would you be willing to pay an extra 10% for single payer?

I would be willing to pay 10%, if I was spending 10% of my gross on health insurance, absolutely. I used my finances as the example for the 2.5% figure, so that would quadruple my monthly healthcare expenditure. I don't think anyone would experience that kind of increase under single payer, though. I would be willing to double from 2.5% to 5% though. I don't think I would miss that money all that much, and I would absolutely be willing to pay it for universal healthcare. I'm not particularly concerned about the 'pursuit of happiness' impact of a couple hundred bucks a month for people making north of $200K. I just can't imagine a scenario in which that amount of money is highly material to many of those households.

We can play your game all the way down to zero. Who's to say that anyone should pay any taxes at all? Who are we to determine that? The reality is that we enter into a society to provide for the mutual good. If people want a truly no-holds-barred 'freedom' they can go to tribal Africa where you can do what ever you want as long as you have the ability and willingness to kill anyone who tries to stop you.

[X-man]

Total garbage and deflection as usual. What society TRULY wants is reflected in their individual choices (not their cute, pathetic and hypocritical virtue signaling). Answer the question. How much of your income are you willing to pay to acheive the societal goals YOU personally wish to be rights?

Why is public goods theory "total garbage and deflection"? You either don't understand the theory (along with your already demonstrated lack of understanding of externalities theory) or you are just muddying the waters. And WTF??? Why does my tax rate have anything to do with this conversation? I will tell you that I paid a higher percentage of my income is federal taxes last year than our president. And I am fine with what I am paying, although I do wish that someone making as much as our president pay at least as high a percentage as I do.

[SemajParlor]

I don't care which side of the aisle you are on this should be of MAJOR concern to almost anybody outside of Trump's inner circle.

This point still has incredulously not clicked for everyone yet . Don't worry, it eventually will for everyone.

[Strange Brew]

I would be willing to pay 10%, if I was spending 10% of my gross on health insurance, absolutely. I used my finances as the example for the 2.5% figure, so that would quadruple my monthly healthcare expenditure. I don't think anyone would experience that kind of increase under single payer, though. I would be willing to double from 2.5% to 5% though. I don't think I would miss that money all that much, and I would absolutely be willing to pay it for universal healthcare. I'm not particularly concerned about the 'pursuit of happiness' impact of a couple hundred bucks a month for people making north of $200K. I just can't imagine a scenario in which that amount of money is highly material to many of those households.

We can play your game all the way down to zero. Who's to say that anyone should pay any taxes at all? Who are we to determine that? The reality is that we enter into a society to provide for the mutual good. If people want a truly no-holds-barred 'freedom' they can go to tribal Africa where you can do what ever you want as long as you have the ability and willingness to kill anyone who tries to stop you.

Great that you'd pay 10% more and the good news is you can. No one is stopping you. What's interesting is a 10% tax increase for a state run universal healthcare system was on the ballot out here in blue CO last fall. It failed miserably. So again what people say they want and what they personally are willing to do are two very different things.

The US is not a place for those who work for the benefit of others. If you'd like that I suggest you move to Venezuela or North Korea since you like extreme examples (tribal Africa...).

[GoMuskies]

This point still has incredulously not clicked for everyone yet . Don't worry, it eventually will.

Personally, I think you guys have found your own Benghazi. BENGHAZI! BENGHAZI! RUSSIA!

[Caf]

The US is not a place for those who work for the benefit of others. If you'd like that I suggest you move to Venezuela or North Korea since you like extreme examples (tribal Africa...).

Great logical points, considered me convinced. Bravo. You sir are a true scholar.

[paulxu]

I am amazed out how we overlook the real world.
Other countries through decades of work, have discovered how to give ALL their citizens basic health care coverage.
Sure, each of them has challenges they work through daily, just like our sort of hodge podge system.

But they decided to make it single payer and non-profit. And it has proven to work.
Reminds me often of how our auto industry refused for years to acknowledge Toyota was building better cars for less, and at a higher level of quality.

So when we talk about costs going up as we try to cover more of our people, we overlook that those other countries do if for far, far less.
We should be talking about costs going down.

[Caf]

We should be talking about costs going down.

Oh we already did. You must have missed Juice's writings.


Less government oversight. Tax deductions for health care spending. Shit like that so costs decrease for everyone so when poor people or people who don't get insurance through work have to get care that when the government/other people have to cover their shit, it's not as much.

[GoMuskies]

But they decided to make it single payer and non-profit. And it has proven to work.


This health care debate isn't a huge issue to me, so I've mostly stayed out of it, but are you not worried at all that taking the profit motive completely out of health care will stifle innovation? Even if other countries have managed to do that over the years, the U.S. has always been operating as we have (warts and all) and providing many innovations that are used worldwide in the medical field. It seems plausible (to me) that removing profit motive in the medical field would discourage research, experimentation, etc.

But I also may not know what the hell I'm talking about.

[SemajParlor]

Personally, I think you guys have found your own Benghazi. BENGHAZI! BENGHAZI! RUSSIA!

We doing odds for impeachment? How about +450?

[boozehound]

I don't see what one person overpaying his obligation would accomplish. It's not like it would change policy.

One thing that I think often gets lost in the healthcare debate is the fact that the amount we pay in premiums is substantial to the average American, and could cover a modestly large increase in income taxes, particularly for middle income Americans.

Consider the following: My health insurance costs about $500 per month for an 80/20 PPO plan. My company has pretty good insurance and shares a good portion of the cost, so I don't pay as much as many others, but let's use that $500/mo as a benchmark.

If you make $240K per year that $500/mo amounts to 2.5% of gross monthly income ($20,000/$500). It's a pretty small percentage that isn't likely to be significant to that person't budget. Now let's say that you make closer to (but slightly above) the average income at $60K. Now that $500 monthly premium is 10% of your gross monthly income. That's pretty significant.

In that scenario average Americans could incur a 10% increase in income taxes and still net out neutral. A 10% increase would be MASSIVE, and I'm certainly not advocating for that, but I think it's an interesting data point when people complain about taxes, but then fail to consider other obligations that would be reduced / erased.

Personally, I'm OK with paying a couple of extra points to cover health care for those less fortunate than me. I understand that not everybody feels that way, but that is my perspective. I also believe there is a significant pooled risk benefit to single payer that would substantially reduce costs, as well as a benefit from increased preventative care. I also don't believe in the current 'healthcare lottery' in which people who have been doing everything right have a child come down with cancer and are bankrupted.

I do believe in the value of competition, and I believe that being poor should be substantially worse than being wealthy. Society needs competition, and in many cases people need to be uncomfortable to truly push them to better themselves. I just happen to believe that healthcare should be exempted from that.


I would be willing to pay 10%, if I was spending 10% of my gross on health insurance, absolutely. I used my finances as the example for the 2.5% figure, so that would quadruple my monthly healthcare expenditure. I don't think anyone would experience that kind of increase under single payer, though. I would be willing to double from 2.5% to 5% though. I don't think I would miss that money all that much, and I would absolutely be willing to pay it for universal healthcare. I'm not particularly concerned about the 'pursuit of happiness' impact of a couple hundred bucks a month for people making north of $200K. I just can't imagine a scenario in which that amount of money is highly material to many of those households.

We can play your game all the way down to zero. Who's to say that anyone should pay any taxes at all? Who are we to determine that? The reality is that we enter into a society to provide for the mutual good. If people want a truly no-holds-barred 'freedom' they can go to tribal Africa where you can do what ever you want as long as you have the ability and willingness to kill anyone who tries to stop you.


Great that you'd pay 10% more and the good news is you can. No one is stopping you. What's interesting is a 10% tax increase for a state run universal healthcare system was on the ballot out here in blue CO last fall. It failed miserably. So again what people say they want and what they personally are willing to do are two very different things.

The US is not a place for those who work for the benefit of others. If you'd like that I suggest you move to Venezuela or North Korea since you like extreme examples (tribal Africa...).

Can I ask you an honest question? What is your purpose in participating in this discussion? What value do you think it adds when you intentionally misstate people's arguments and then partially respond to them? Is there a comprehension issue coming in to play that prevents you from taking into account previous posts in your subsequent responses? What you are doing contributes nothing to the discourse and is disrespectful to people who take the time to formulate and communicate a thought-out argument.

I have previously stated that I don't see a value in anyone 'kicking in' 10% to the government 'just because'. It doesn't change policy, or actually provide for people.

I have also already articulated what I thought was a pretty clear example in which people might be paying an 'extra' 10% in taxes offset by a 10% reduction in healthcare costs, netting neutral. You responded that I can pay an extra 10% on top of my healthcare premiums, which is very clearly not what I have stated in any of the above posts. If I wasn't clear above I would be happy to provide additional clarification if requested.

I pretty strongly disagree with you last point, but I acknowledge your opinion. My primary reason for disagreeing is my belief that any time people enter into a society they (at times) work for the benefit of others. It mitigates their own risk, and is a fundamental building block of why people initially organized into societies at all. We can accomplish more working together than we can individually, and it benefits all parties. People who add more value (as society determines it) are compensated for that, but the healthy help the weak. The young help the old. The rich help the poor. It doesn't mean they all are (or should be) equal in how they are compensated and the level of luxury in which they live.

I'll grant you your last point as a response to my (admittedly hyperbolic) example of tribal Africa.

[boozehound]

This health care debate isn't a huge issue to me, so I've mostly stayed out of it, but are you not worried at all that taking the profit motive completely out of health care will stifle innovation? Even if other countries have managed to do that over the years, the U.S. has always been operating as we have (warts and all) and providing many innovations that are used worldwide in the medical field. It seems plausible (to me) that removing profit motive in the medical field would discourage research, experimentation, etc.

But I also may not know what the hell I'm talking about.

This is probably my biggest concern with single-payer. I don't want to lose our innovation, but I believe we can structure a system that allows us to keep our edge. I also think the alternative is healthcare becoming almost inaccessible over the next 30-ish years if we don't do something material to reform the system.

Consider the following though:

1 - You don't have to completely remove the profit motive to have a single payer system. You can create a 'Medicare for all' type of approach above which Doctors can charge rates above what single-payer covers. People can pay the difference out of pocket, or even purchase supplemental insurance to cover it if they so choose. This is how many retiree health care programs work in the United States today. Once you are Medicare eligible Medicare becomes your primary insurance and your company's retiree benefits become secondary.

2 - The United states has shown the ability to do some pretty cool things without a direct profit motive. Hell, we got a man on the moon in the 1960's.

[ChicagoX]

This health care debate isn't a huge issue to me, so I've mostly stayed out of it, but are you not worried at all that taking the profit motive completely out of health care will stifle innovation? Even if other countries have managed to do that over the years, the U.S. has always been operating as we have (warts and all) and providing many innovations that are used worldwide in the medical field. It seems plausible (to me) that removing profit motive in the medical field would discourage research, experimentation, etc.

But I also may not know what the hell I'm talking about.

This is why I think a public option is better than single-payer. Allow low-income people to have access to affordable healthcare options through the government since insurance companies clearly don't want to cover them. This will allow people to still get insurance plans through their employer and pay a premium for the best plans if that's what they want and can afford. The profit motive is still there and insurance companies won't have to concern themselves with the low-income people they have no desire to insure due to lack of profitability.

The problem is that a lot of people don't know the difference between a public option and single-payer and think they are the same thing.

[Masterofreality]

This is probably my biggest concern with single-payer. I don't want to lose our innovation, but I believe we can structure a system that allows us to keep our edge. I also think the alternative is healthcare becoming almost inaccessible over the next 30-ish years if we don't do something material to reform the system.

Consider the following though:

1 - You don't have to completely remove the profit motive to have a single payer system. You can create a 'Medicare for all' type of approach above which Doctors can charge rates above what single-payer covers. People can pay the difference out of pocket, or even purchase supplemental insurance to cover it if they so choose. This is how many retiree health care programs work in the United States today. Once you are Medicare eligible Medicare becomes your primary insurance and your company's retiree benefits become secondary.

2 - The United states has shown the ability to do some pretty cool things without a direct profit motive. Hell, we got a man on the moon in the 1960's.

1 is exactly what Lovely wife and I decided to do. We are now eligible & signed up for Medicare parts A (hospitalization) and B. We are also doing a supplemental policy for Parts D (drugs) and G (replaces F) that covers the deductibles & co-pays. We're paying an extra premium over the standard Part B cost, but it locks in our annual cost with no surprises or limits. If we wanted to gamble that we'd have no medical issues we could get a cheaper policy but would have to risk high deductibles & much higher co-pays at 20%.

Many in other "single payer" countries like Ireland for example, also have available policies that get them a higher level of care faster. One of the bargaining chips that one of our Irish B & B hosts (a member of the Irish Garda (police)) was using in contract negotiations was that they would have a "Cadillac" policy available to them in lieu of a pay increase to expedite and enhance their medical care.

[GoMuskies]

we doing odds for impeachment? How about +450?

benghazi!!!!!

[SemajParlor]

benghazi!!!!!

Lol I was being serious

[GoMuskies]

Lol I was being serious

i think my online book actually has a prop bet on this (they did in February, at least). Let me check the odds.

[STL_XUfan]

i think my online book actually has a prop bet on this (they did in February, at least). Let me check the odds.

Would you need the hedge the bet with a second bet that he resigns? That way you are covered in case he pulls a Nixon.

[GoMuskies]

I found a PBS article from April that says he's 3-2 to be impeached. But I'd have to dig into that a bit more. I mean, is that like Bill Clinton impeached, or is it impeached and removed (or resigned)?

[SemajParlor]

I found a PBS article from April that says he's 3-2 to be impeached. But I'd have to dig into that a bit more. I mean, is that like Bill Clinton impeached, or is it impeached and removed (or resigned)?

Hmm. Yeah I think to avoid confusion maybe it should be "leave office." I'm willing to put $20 on it and loser donates to site. Come on everyone wins, even this deranged place of lunacy we call Xavier Hoops. Either that or I'm suffering withdrawals until the Preakness.

[GoMuskies]

I'm in for $20. Wouldn't be surprised to lose that one for any number of reasons, but I don't think it will be Russia. Most likely loss for me (IMO): he just gets tired of it and claims some sort of health issue and resigns. Or he randomly grabs a stranger by the pussy. Equally likely.

[Strange Brew]

Can I ask you an honest question? What is your purpose in participating in this discussion? What value do you think it adds when you intentionally misstate people's arguments and then partially respond to them? Is there a comprehension issue coming in to play that prevents you from taking into account previous posts in your subsequent responses? What you are doing contributes nothing to the discourse and is disrespectful to people who take the time to formulate and communicate a thought-out argument.

I have previously stated that I don't see a value in anyone 'kicking in' 10% to the government 'just because'. It doesn't change policy, or actually provide for people.

I have also already articulated what I thought was a pretty clear example in which people might be paying an 'extra' 10% in taxes offset by a 10% reduction in healthcare costs, netting neutral. You responded that I can pay an extra 10% on top of my healthcare premiums, which is very clearly not what I have stated in any of the above posts. If I wasn't clear above I would be happy to provide additional clarification if requested.

I pretty strongly disagree with you last point, but I acknowledge your opinion. My primary reason for disagreeing is my belief that any time people enter into a society they (at times) work for the benefit of others. It mitigates their own risk, and is a fundamental building block of why people initially organized into societies at all. We can accomplish more working together than we can individually, and it benefits all parties. People who add more value (as society determines it) are compensated for that, but the healthy help the weak. The young help the old. The rich help the poor. It doesn't mean they all are (or should be) equal in how they are compensated and the level of luxury in which they live.

I'll grant you your last point as a response to my (admittedly hyperbolic) example of tribal Africa.

I'm pointing out there are costs to what your advocating and I'm making sure you personally are willing to bear those costs. Sounds like you are and X-Man is not unless the President pays a slightly higher % of his income to govt regardless of the fact we know he already contributed more to the system in 2005 than X-man will make in a lifetime. Unfortunately most people who believe in govt run systems tend to think like X-Man. Also what makes you think costs will go down and innovation will thrive in a govt run system? There's no real world example you can point to that illustrates that argument. Also, we have medical safety nets in Medicaid and Medicare so I'm not sure the argument being made is about helping those who can't help themselves but more about leveling the benefits for all regardless of what you contribute to the govt/system.

Finally yes, sometimes we do work for others but in this country it should be voluntary.

[bobbiemcgee]

1 is exactly what Lovely wife and I decided to do. We are now eligible & signed up for Medicare parts A (hospitalization) and B. We are also doing a supplemental policy for Parts D (drugs) and G (replaces F) that covers the deductibles & co-pays. We're paying an extra premium over the standard Part B cost, but it locks in our annual cost with no surprises or limits. If we wanted to gamble that we'd have no medical issues we could get a cheaper policy but would have to risk high deductibles & much higher co-pays at 20%.

Very happy with my Medicare Advantage with 0 premium. Has Part D included with all my scripts @ 0 per month (mail order). Coupled it with a hospital indemnity plan for about 20 a month that pays the deductibles Medicare doesn't for ambulance and hospital stays. When I was in Florida, the Advantage Plan even gave me back my Part B premium every month.

[X-man]

I'm pointing out there are costs to what your advocating and I'm making sure you personally are willing to bear those costs. Sounds like you are and X-Man is not unless the President pays a slightly higher % of his income to govt regardless of the fact we know he already contributed more to the system in 2005 than X-man will make in a lifetime. Unfortunately most people who believe in govt run systems tend to think like X-Man. Also what makes you think costs will go down and innovation will thrive in a govt run system? There's no real world example you can point to that illustrates that argument. Also, we have medical safety nets in Medicaid and Medicare so I'm not sure the argument being made is about helping those who can't help themselves but more about leveling the benefits for all regardless of what you contribute to the govt/system.

Finally yes, sometimes we do work for others but in this country it should be voluntary.
And there we have it...Strange is against all government safety net programs. It should all be "voluntary". Never mind the public goods issue that makes a voluntary system inoperative because of free ridership problems. And can we also assume that all contributions to pay for national defense should also be voluntary?

And it also seems clear that Strange doesn't believe that tax dollars paid should somehow be relative to income, even proportional apparently. Trump has paid more than I so I should have no beef with the fact that he pays a lower percentage of his income than I do.

[Caf]

And there we have it...Strange is against all government safety net programs. It should all be "voluntary". Never mind the public goods issue that makes a voluntary system inoperative because of free ridership problems. And can we also assume that all contributions to pay for national defense should also be voluntary?

And it also seems clear that Strange doesn't believe that tax dollars paid should somehow be relative to income, even proportional apparently. Trump has paid more than I so I should have no beef with the fact that he pays a lower percentage of his income than I do.

I think you've come to the end of the libertarian/conservative rope. Many don't really believe in anything. They just want lower taxes, less government spending (except for military sometimes), and people to ditch all of the freeloaders. There's no end to those desires, it's always gotta be "less", "lower", etc. It's a special form of nihilism.

Must be nice to never consider solutions to problems and instead just rail on others'.

[Juice]

I think you've come to the end of the libertarian/conservative rope. Many don't really believe in anything. They just want lower taxes, less government spending (except for military sometimes), and people to ditch all of the freeloaders. There's no end to those desires, it's always gotta be "less", "lower", etc. It's a special form of nihilism.

Must be nice to never consider solutions to problems and instead just rail on others'.

No we believe in things. We just don't believe that the government is the solution or the mechanism for them.

[boozehound]

I'm pointing out there are costs to what your advocating and I'm making sure you personally are willing to bear those costs. Sounds like you are and X-Man is not unless the President pays a slightly higher % of his income to govt regardless of the fact we know he already contributed more to the system in 2005 than X-man will make in a lifetime. Unfortunately most people who believe in govt run systems tend to think like X-Man.

Gotcha. Yes, there are costs. There are costs to our current system too, though.


Also what makes you think costs will go down and innovation will thrive in a govt run system? There's no real world example you can point to that illustrates that argument. Also, we have medical safety nets in Medicaid and Medicare so I'm not sure the argument being made is about helping those who can't help themselves but more about leveling the benefits for all regardless of what you contribute to the govt/system.

Costs going down and innovation thriving are two very different things. I feel pretty confident that costs will go down as evidenced by US Healthcare costs benchmarked against other developed nations with various versions of a single payer healthcare system. I would say that there is as much evidences to suggest costs would decrease as there is evidence to suggest costs would increase.

The innovation piece is a bit tougher for me, and I do worry about that. We do have some evidence that the government can foster innovation (Space Program, CDC, etc.) but whether or not it can do so as effectively as the free market I question.

You are correct that Medicaid already exists as a safety net for the very poor. I'm concerned with providing decent quality healthcare to the people above the income limits for Medicaid (generally between $24K and $45K per year depending on family size) that can't pay upwards of $1,000 per month in premiums for health insurance. If you make $50K, $60K, or even $80K per year $1,000 per month is A LOT of money. Even if you can pay that $1,000 per month you typically still have a deductible to meet (often north of $1K) and co-insurance on top of that. A family member getting seriously ill can, and frequently does, bankrupt those people even if they do have insurance. It's a lottery - you just hope it doesn't happen to you. I used to volunteer at the Ronald McDonald house from time to time. Many of those families had good jobs with health insurance and they still ended up financially devastated because their children got seriously ill. These people didn't make bad choices, they just had bad luck. Many lost their homes as they tried to keep up with their medical bills and care for their children. I don't view that as acceptable in a society as wealthy as ours.

Medicare is essentially single-payer healthcare for those over 65, with some stupid rules thrown in to drive costs up like the regulations that the government can't negotiate drug costs. I'm not even sure it's a 'safety net' program anymore. My Dad is on Medicare and is a retired executive from a large company with full retiree benefits - they just subordinate to Medicare.


Finally yes, sometimes we do work for others but in this country it should be voluntary.

I don't really know how that would work. Should we just totally abolish taxes and let people pay what they want? How much revenue do you think that would generate?

[Strange Brew]

I think you've come to the end of the libertarian/conservative rope. Many don't really believe in anything. They just want lower taxes, less government spending (except for military sometimes), and people to ditch all of the freeloaders. There's no end to those desires, it's always gotta be "less", "lower", etc. It's a special form of nihilism.

Must be nice to never consider solutions to problems and instead just rail on others'.

Predictable. Either the Fed govt does it or nihilism. I have no problem with the states setting up programs not enlisted to the Feds by the Constitution. I have a hard time believing a gov't system on that scale would drive down costs while maintaining the same level of innovation.

No, I don't believe in Progressive taxation in its current form as too many do not have skin in the game for most of our Federal programs. I'd like to see it challenged someday as a violation of the 14th Amendment (equal protection).

Couple of others who lean my way have offered changes/solutions and I'd like to add tort reform as well.

Maybe CA will figure out what VT and MA couldn't when it comes to healthcare. Glad I don't live there.

[Caf]

Predictable. Either the Fed govt does it or nihilism. I have no problem with the states setting up programs not enlisted to the Feds by the Constitution. I have a hard time believing a gov't system on that scale would drive down costs while maintaining the same level of innovation.

No, I don't believe in Progressive taxation in its current form as too many do not have skin in the game for most of our Federal programs. I'd like to see it challenged someday as a violation of the 14th Amendment (equal protection).

Couple of others who lean my way have offered changes/solutions and I'd like to add tort reform as well.

Maybe CA will figure out what VT and MA couldn't when it comes to healthcare. Glad I don't live there.

Question, do you think the state of insurance was broken before ACA or was that the ideal system to you?

And I agree, being against government intervention is not nihilism. Saying all "work for others should be voluntary" is. Saying that a country where people work for the benefit of others is equivalent to Venezuela or North Korea is nihilism.

[OH.X.MI]

"Hey, I know that guy, he's a nihilist. Karl Hungus."

[Strange Brew]

Question, do you think the state of insurance was broken before ACA or was that the ideal system to you?

And I agree, being against government intervention is not nihilism. Saying all "work for others should be voluntary" is. Saying that a country where people work for the benefit of others is equivalent to Venezuela or North Korea is nihilism.

The previous system worked better than the system post ACA. Not ideal but better.

If the goal was to provide BASIC coverage to those that didn't have insurance then that could've been done without roping everyone into a poorly designed system (ACA) more than half of them didn't want. This wasn't the goal. The goal was for the ACA to be painful so the Progressives could then say "we tried using the markets and they failed (b/c of govt intervention) so we must have single payer". Don't believe me? Listen to what Obama and others have said in like minded company.

My NK and Venezuela reference in in response to the other posters hyperbole.

No, I don't think people should be forced to work for others. There are certain things we as a people and states allowed/volunteered the Fed govt to spend money on. Other people's healthcare, housing and food were not any of them. Yes, any Fed program that does so should be struck down and the power to do so returned to the states until the Constitution is amended.

[LA Muskie]

Germany has a mostly (85%) single-payer, socialized healthcare system that is often considered the most innovative in the world. I too believe that profit and competition incentivize innovation at a macro level. But the assumption generalized elements always govern at the micro level is flawed logic.

On a similar note, while capitalism works at a macro level, human greed and dishonesty dictate that unregulated capitalism fails. This has been proven time and again. And industries like healthcare are hit the hardest because LIFE is nearly impossible to value and hence its commercial aspects are subject to corruption.

[LA Muskie]

The notion of a nation -- a society -- by definition requires a degree of commune. Saying that we as Americans shouldn't be compelled to serve, help, or contribute to one another is a false narrative. It's not and never has been an either/or. It's a matter of degree.

[Strange Brew]

Germany has a mostly (85%) single-payer, socialized healthcare system that is often considered the most innovative in the world. I too believe that profit and competition incentivize innovation at a macro level. But the assumption generalized elements always govern at the micro level is flawed logic.

On a similar note, while capitalism works at a macro level, human greed and dishonesty dictate that unregulated capitalism fails. This has been proven time and again. And industries like healthcare are hit the hardest because LIFE is nearly impossible to value and hence its commercial aspects are subject to corruption.

Are you saying the bureaucracy is not subject to the same level of human greed and dishonesty?

Actually Progressive intellectuals have found ways to value LIFE. Google The Complete Lives System.

[Strange Brew]

The notion of a nation -- a society -- by definition requires a degree of commune. Saying that we as Americans shouldn't be compelled to serve, help, or contribute to one another is a false narrative. It's not and never has been an either/or. It's a matter of degree.

No argument here and we as a people and states decided we do not want the Fed govt to compel us to pay for other people's healthcare.

[LA Muskie]

No argument here and we as a people and states decided we do not want the Fed govt to compel us to pay for other people's healthcare.
I'm not sure that's entirely true. I'm also not sure when the people and the states supposedly made that decision. We have -- and have had for years -- any number of federal government programs that pay or help pay for other people's food, housing, and yes healthcare. The ACA/Obamacare wasn't a new phenomenon in that regard. It just sought improve on the systems already in place -- and I would argue that it succeeded somewhat, albeit in a flawed manner.

Furthermore, to the extent states have their own public healthcare programs, they are largely federally-funded. So saying that under our federalist system they have been left to the states isn't particularly accurate. The largest state-operated public healthcare system -- Medicaid -- receives 57-75% of its funding (depending on the state) from the federal government. Hell, on average 30% of all state income is sourced from federal funds. I would have a lot more intellectual respect for the federalist movement if states weren't so reliant on the federal government.

[LA Muskie]

Are you saying the bureaucracy is not subject to the same level of human greed and dishonesty?
No, I am not saying that at all. As Lord Acton once said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."


Actually Progressive intellectuals have found ways to value LIFE. Google The Complete Lives System.
It's difficult to have an rational, intellectual discussion about healthcare when someone posts something like this. I'm not spewing bullshit talking points from the pro-ACA camp. If you're just going to resuscitate "death panel" fake news then we'll just have to move on.

[kmcrawfo]

There exists the fundamental problem that universal/socialized healthcare is not sustainable. Regardless of how much people or a country may want to provide healthcare for all its citizens, the resources do not exist to do so. The ACA/Obamacare has shown this when it attempted to remove risk stratification of premiums. All that has done is dramatically increase the premiums and deductibles for all parties. The result has been access to insurance, but not access to care.

The bottom line is that the government sector will never be able to provide healthcare to all the citizens of this country. As we continue to navigate down this road the end result will emulate other countries such as Canada and the UK where there is even a more distinct two-tiered system between the private sector for the extremely wealthy and the socialized sector for everyone else. The socialized sector is great as long as you aren't really sick or need a non-urgent treatment (hip replacement, non-urgent CABG, etc).

The problem is that since the ACA was passed it appears the dynamic of this country has changed and that the public somehow perceives healthcare as a right, so I don't know that we will ever truly be rid of it and the implications that resulted of the legislation. It would likely be political suicide for politicians to suggest otherwise, and for the most part those in power are very motivated by maintaining their elected positions.

We can probably slow down the destruction of our healthcare system, but I don't ever see us going back to what was better for 90% of Americans prior to the ACA being passed.

[Juice]

There exists the fundamental problem that universal/socialized healthcare is not sustainable. Regardless of how much people or a country may want to provide healthcare for all its citizens, the resources do not exist to do so. The ACA/Obamacare has shown this when it attempted to remove risk stratification of premiums. All that has done is dramatically increase the premiums and deductibles for all parties. The result has been access to insurance, but not access to care.

The bottom line is that the government sector will never be able to provide healthcare to all the citizens of this country. As we continue to navigate down this road the end result will emulate other countries such as Canada and the UK where there is even a more distinct two-tiered system between the private sector for the extremely wealthy and the socialized sector for everyone else. The socialized sector is great as long as you aren't really sick or need a non-urgent treatment (hip replacement, non-urgent CABG, etc).

The problem is that since the ACA was passed it appears the dynamic of this country has changed and that the public somehow perceives healthcare as a right, so I don't know that we will ever truly be rid of it and the implications that resulted of the legislation. It would likely be political suicide for politicians to suggest otherwise, and for the most part those in power are very motivated by maintaining their elected positions.

We can probably slow down the destruction of our healthcare system, but I don't ever see us going back to what was better for 90% of Americans prior to the ACA being passed.

It's not a constitutional right, but it's like a right...not that type of right...but a right.

[Juice]

So progressive

http://freebeacon.com/issues/gay-never-trumper-becomes-latest-victim-campus-attacks-free-speech/

[GoMuskies]

So progressive

http://freebeacon.com/issues/gay-never-trumper-becomes-latest-victim-campus-attacks-free-speech/

That one's nothing. This Rebecca Tuvel situation is fucking nuts.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/transracialism-article-controversy.html

[bobbiemcgee]

Starting to warm up here in the Caymans, heading back to Ireland to quaff a few brews for the summer.

[Strange Brew]

There exists the fundamental problem that universal/socialized healthcare is not sustainable. Regardless of how much people or a country may want to provide healthcare for all its citizens, the resources do not exist to do so. The ACA/Obamacare has shown this when it attempted to remove risk stratification of premiums. All that has done is dramatically increase the premiums and deductibles for all parties. The result has been access to insurance, but not access to care.

The bottom line is that the government sector will never be able to provide healthcare to all the citizens of this country. As we continue to navigate down this road the end result will emulate other countries such as Canada and the UK where there is even a more distinct two-tiered system between the private sector for the extremely wealthy and the socialized sector for everyone else. The socialized sector is great as long as you aren't really sick or need a non-urgent treatment (hip replacement, non-urgent CABG, etc).

The problem is that since the ACA was passed it appears the dynamic of this country has changed and that the public somehow perceives healthcare as a right, so I don't know that we will ever truly be rid of it and the implications that resulted of the legislation. It would likely be political suicide for politicians to suggest otherwise, and for the most part those in power are very motivated by maintaining their elected positions.

We can probably slow down the destruction of our healthcare system, but I don't ever see us going back to what was better for 90% of Americans prior to the ACA being passed.

bump.

[Strange Brew]

I'm not sure that's entirely true. I'm also not sure when the people and the states supposedly made that decision. We have -- and have had for years -- any number of federal government programs that pay or help pay for other people's food, housing, and yes healthcare. The ACA/Obamacare wasn't a new phenomenon in that regard. It just sought improve on the systems already in place -- and I would argue that it succeeded somewhat, albeit in a flawed manner.

Furthermore, to the extent states have their own public healthcare programs, they are largely federally-funded. So saying that under our federalist system they have been left to the states isn't particularly accurate. The largest state-operated public healthcare system -- Medicaid -- receives 57-75% of its funding (depending on the state) from the federal government. Hell, on average 30% of all state income is sourced from federal funds. I would have a lot more intellectual respect for the federalist movement if states weren't so reliant on the federal government.

Which is why I'm for an amendment if we, as a people, truly want a gov't run healthcare system instead of a bs bill that no one read or understood but passed anyway in the dead of night along party lines (ACA and the AHCA isn't better. Hope Trump vetoes it). I'm excited to see if CA can pass a single payer system and make it work. I'm also glad I don't live there b/c based on history and human nature I know it's going to suck.

[Strange Brew]

This is probably my biggest concern with single-payer. I don't want to lose our innovation, but I believe we can structure a system that allows us to keep our edge. I also think the alternative is healthcare becoming almost inaccessible over the next 30-ish years if we don't do something material to reform the system.

Consider the following though:

1 - You don't have to completely remove the profit motive to have a single payer system. You can create a 'Medicare for all' type of approach above which Doctors can charge rates above what single-payer covers. People can pay the difference out of pocket, or even purchase supplemental insurance to cover it if they so choose. This is how many retiree health care programs work in the United States today. Once you are Medicare eligible Medicare becomes your primary insurance and your company's retiree benefits become secondary.

2 - The United states has shown the ability to do some pretty cool things without a direct profit motive. Hell, we got a man on the moon in the 1960's.

2. Boeing (along with MDD and one other private company) did quite well developing the Saturn rocket.

[Masterofreality]

What about for Doctor visits, labs, tests and other non hospitalization stuff? That is what F (soon to be called G) is supposed to be involved with but you've got a 20% co-pay and a deductible amount that could be high? Is

There are some pre-existing conditions that my wife has that we know we'll have extra costs to cover for, that is why we're locking it in.

[Masterofreality]

There exists the fundamental problem that universal/socialized healthcare is not sustainable. Regardless of how much people or a country may want to provide healthcare for all its citizens, the resources do not exist to do so. The ACA/Obamacare has shown this when it attempted to remove risk stratification of premiums. All that has done is dramatically increase the premiums and deductibles for all parties. The result has been access to insurance, but not access to care.

The bottom line is that the government sector will never be able to provide healthcare to all the citizens of this country. As we continue to navigate down this road the end result will emulate other countries such as Canada and the UK where there is even a more distinct two-tiered system between the private sector for the extremely wealthy and the socialized sector for everyone else. The socialized sector is great as long as you aren't really sick or need a non-urgent treatment (hip replacement, non-urgent CABG, etc).

The problem is that since the ACA was passed it appears the dynamic of this country has changed and that the public somehow perceives healthcare as a right, so I don't know that we will ever truly be rid of it and the implications that resulted of the legislation. It would likely be political suicide for politicians to suggest otherwise, and for the most part those in power are very motivated by maintaining their elected positions.

We can probably slow down the destruction of our healthcare system, but I don't ever see us going back to what was better for 90% of Americans prior to the ACA being passed.

This man is a real Medical Doctor. Please believe what he says.

[bobbiemcgee]

"........ but I don't ever see us going back to what was better for 90% of Americans prior to the ACA being passed."

I would only dispute the "90%". I was paying 1200-1450 a month for a crappy self-employed policy before medicare with a pre-existing rider that not everything was covered, i.e., if I got pneumonia again, tough shit, no coverage. I had to agree to the non-coverage or get flat-out cancelled. Don't like our "coverage" decision? Sue us. We got plenty of Attys on staff. Nope, don't want to go back to that. Tried to switch to an HSA (republicans love this), nope "you have a pre-existing" need new underwriting and a fat increase. No wonder everybody hates insurance cos. BTW, their profits have skyrocketed and nobody doing anything about it. They just want to eliminate all risk and reap huge profits. There's plenty of blame to go around, folks.

[bobbiemcgee]

What about for Doctor visits, labs, tests and other non hospitalization stuff? That is what F (soon to be called G) is supposed to be involved with but you've got a 20% co-pay and a deductible amount that could be high? Is

There are some pre-existing conditions that my wife has that we know we'll have extra costs to cover for, that is why we're locking it in.


Absolutely makes sense if you have health problems. Most states have a 6 month "guaranteed issue" for supplements when you turn 65. After that, if you change companies (better premium is the ONLY reason to switch as all supplements are the same by law), they can underwrite.

[SemajParlor]

I found a PBS article from April that says he's 3-2 to be impeached. But I'd have to dig into that a bit more. I mean, is that like Bill Clinton impeached, or is it impeached and removed (or resigned)?

3-2 !? That's crazy high.

Was it Jimmy the Greek who said "the spread is not what the outcome should be, it's what the fans think the outcome should be" ?

[X-man]

And there we have it...Strange is against all government safety net programs. It should all be "voluntary". Never mind the public goods issue that makes a voluntary system inoperative because of free ridership problems. And can we also assume that all contributions to pay for national defense should also be voluntary?



Too bad XU87 can't respond to the question I specifically asked of him, the one which Brew answered. We now know that Brew is against all welfare programs covering food and shelter, tax subsidies for education (including all publicly supported college and universities), and any healthcare programs funded by taxes such as Medicaid and Medicare. XU87's comments suggest that he is in the same camp but unlike Brew, he doesn't appear to have the balls to admit it on this board.

[Strange Brew]

Too bad XU87 can't respond to the question I specifically asked of him, the one which Brew answered. We now know that Brew is against all welfare programs covering food and shelter, tax subsidies for education (including all publicly supported college and universities), and any healthcare programs funded by taxes such as Medicaid and Medicare. XU87's comments suggest that he is in the same camp but unlike Brew, he doesn't appear to have the balls to admit it on this board.

Nope, reading comprehension appears to be hard for you. In fact, I've stated multiple times in this thread I don't mind if states run these programs. I hope CA gives 1 govt payer a shot. It has a population similar to Canada so maybe we can learn things before we subject ~300 million people to a govt run system. Consider it a pilot program. Again, thanks for playing.

[OH.X.MI]

Too bad XU87 can't respond to the question I specifically asked of him, the one which Brew answered. We now know that Brew is against all welfare programs covering food and shelter, tax subsidies for education (including all publicly supported college and universities), and any healthcare programs funded by taxes such as Medicaid and Medicare. XU87's comments suggest that he is in the same camp but unlike Brew, he doesn't appear to have the balls to admit it on this board.

If you don't support a bureaucratic welfare state then what do you want? Dead poor people. Am I right, X-Man?

I have the "balls" to say that I am against the programs you reference.

The nuance that you are apparently incapable of comprehending is that I, and perhaps others, am against our society betterment programs in their current state. I cant speak for 87 or Brew, but I believe there needs to be a massive reform of entitlements in this country. But I wouldn't dare try to discuss those reforms. I've read enough of your posts to know that anyone who differs with you on this subject is just some capitalist villain who wants to see poor kids freeze to death in the street.

[Caf]

Nope, reading comprehension appears to be hard for you. In fact, I've stated multiple times in this thread I don't mind if states run these programs. I hope CA gives 1 govt payer a shot. It has a population similar to Canada so maybe we can learn things before we subject ~300 million people to a govt run system. Consider it a pilot program. Again, thanks for playing.

ytmb (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ytmb)

[Caf]

What Democrats Won't Admit About Voters and Health Care - Bloomberg (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-05-11/what-democrats-won-t-admit-about-voters-and-health-care)

This is a pretty good breakdown of the healthcare debate. The author makes a lot of the points being made here and it's not just anti-Dem like the title might suggest.

[Strange Brew]

ytmb (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ytmb)

Caf, you need to read X-Man's post history to understand why I end rebuttals to him with that line on occasion.

[X-man]

Nope, reading comprehension appears to be hard for you. In fact, I've stated multiple times in this thread I don't mind if states run these programs. I hope CA gives 1 govt payer a shot. It has a population similar to Canada so maybe we can learn things before we subject ~300 million people to a govt run system. Consider it a pilot program. Again, thanks for playing.

Brew, here is your statement on welfare (redistributive) programs: "Finally yes, sometimes we do work for others but in this country it should be voluntary."

Please explain how this squares with your claim that you are OK with states running welfare programs funded by taxes. Are state taxes "voluntary" but federal taxes are not? Is a legislative majority vote decision at the state level to create tax-funded programs "voluntary" but a legislative majority vote to do the same not? As usual, you are inconsistent suggesting that you don't understand what you are saying or you just want to muddy the argument. As I stated before, I would repeat your inane "Thanks for playing" ditty, but you refuse to "play".

[OH.X.MI]

Brew, here is your statement on welfare (redistributive) programs: "Finally yes, sometimes we do work for others but in this country it should be voluntary."

Please explain how this squares with your claim that you are OK with states running welfare programs funded by taxes. Are state taxes "voluntary" but federal taxes are not? Is a legislative majority vote decision at the state level to create tax-funded programs "voluntary" but a legislative majority vote to do the same not? As usual, you are inconsistent suggesting that you don't understand what you are saying or you just want to muddy the argument. As I stated before, I would repeat your inane "Thanks for playing" ditty, but you refuse to "play".

Federalism, enumerated powers, oh my! What difficult concepts to understand.

[bobbiemcgee]

Trump this week:

Creates a voter fraud panel for an "imaginary problem" that's been disputed by every governor in the country and fires the guy whose job it was to enforce election integrity.
Coined the phrase "prime the pump". "I came up with it a few days ago and thought it was good." Somebody notify the Surgeon General . This guy is looney tunes.

[boozehound]

Nope, reading comprehension appears to be hard for you. In fact, I've stated multiple times in this thread I don't mind if states run these programs. I hope CA gives 1 govt payer a shot. It has a population similar to Canada so maybe we can learn things before we subject ~300 million people to a govt run system. Consider it a pilot program. Again, thanks for playing.

This would be in interesting exercise, although it would be insanely difficult to execute. Once you move past the high level talking points you would experience a host of issues that would make something like this virtually impossible to execute on a state level. For one thing, I would argue that for that to really have a shot you would have to somehow either (1) compensate taxpayers in those states for the portion of their federal taxes that they pay toward Medicare/Medicaid since they won't be a part of that program anymore or (2) Credit that state back for that amount so that they can use it to partially fund their single payer healthcare. You can't 'double dip' and have people/companies in those states pay taxes to fund federal programs that they then opt out of. You would also have to watch out for fraud, since our states have open borders. It would be difficult to stop people with preexisting conditions from flooding into the state(s) with single payer to received health care. This would create a risk pool that is not representative of the population and would add significant cost to the system.

If it worked, it would then potentially create another problem. Much of the South and Midwest are generally the states with the highest rate of subsidization from the federal government, a significant amount of which comes in the form of Medicare and Medicaid expenses. They are also the least educated states and often the least productive states. Let's say California adopts a state run single payer and it works. Much of the Northeast would likely follow suit. We already have a problem with educated people leaving the Midwest / Southeast moving to the coasts. This would stand to further exacerbate that flight and could create a pocket of almost 'third world' states within the U.S.

[Caf]

This would be in interesting exercise, although it would be insanely difficult to execute. Once you move past the high level talking points you would experience a host of issues that would make something like this virtually impossible to execute on a state level. For one thing, I would argue that for that to really have a shot you would have to somehow either (1) compensate taxpayers in those states for the portion of their federal taxes that they pay toward Medicare/Medicaid since they won't be a part of that program anymore or (2) Credit that state back for that amount so that they can use it to partially fund their single payer healthcare. You can't 'double dip' and have people/companies in those states pay taxes to fund federal programs that they then opt out of. You would also have to watch out for fraud, since our states have open borders. It would be difficult to stop people with preexisting conditions from flooding into the state(s) with single payer to received health care. This would create a risk pool that is not representative of the population and would add significant cost to the system.

If it worked, it would then potentially create another problem. Much of the South and Midwest are generally the states with the highest rate of subsidization from the federal government, a significant amount of which comes in the form of Medicare and Medicaid expenses. They are also the least educated states and often the least productive states. Let's say California adopts a state run single payer and it works. Much of the Northeast would likely follow suit. We already have a problem with educated people leaving the Midwest / Southeast moving to the coasts. This would stand to further exacerbate that flight and could create a pocket of almost 'third world' states within the U.S.

State run is interesting. I think the biggest question is the FDA and if states would create their own administrations for regulating drugs. My guess is they wouldn't be allowed to. That coupled with what you mentioned about federal programs would probably nullify their ability too successfully implement single payer.

[X-man]

Federalism, enumerated powers, oh my! What difficult concepts to understand.

You are missing the point, both here and in your earlier post. When Brew says all redistributive programs should be "voluntary", he is not talking about federalism or states rights or powers enumerated in the Constitution. He is saying that all working for others should be voluntary. This means unless you believe that paying state taxes is voluntary but federal taxes is not, taking the states rights line as the basis for his position makes no sense. Neither does your piling on comments.

[XU 87]

[QUOTE=X-Man] Too bad XU87 can't respond to the question I specifically asked of him, the one which Brew answered. We now know that Brew is against all welfare programs covering food and shelter, tax subsidies for education (including all publicly supported college and universities), and any healthcare programs funded by taxes such as Medicaid and Medicare. XU87's comments suggest that he is in the same camp but unlike Brew, he doesn't appear to have the balls to admit it on this board.



Are you turning into an internet stalker? As I said several times, I am not interested in engaging in some lengthy discussion regarding my views on the role of government, although I believe in limited government. In addition, I work long hours and I have found that these political discussions can consume a lot of my time, and I now try to stay away from them, albeit not always. I realize long work hours may be a foreign concept to you since you're a college professor, but please try to understand my position here. Finally, having an adult discussion with you is challenging since you usually just get mad at me and call me names.

Gotta go. I have people to sue today.

[Caf]

Two Dead Canaries in the Coal Mine (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/two-dead-canaries-in-the-coal-mine/526230/?utm_source=feed)

[X-man]

Odd post, 87. If anyone is stalking, it's you. You jumped into two different conversations I was having with other posters...see your post #1211 and post #1279 in this thread. And for someone so much more busy than I, you have 2.5 times more posts to this board than I in the same time frame. But hey, logic has never been your strong suit, at least on this board when political discussions are occurring.

[Strange Brew]

You are missing the point, both here and in your earlier post. When Brew says all redistributive programs should be "voluntary", he is not talking about federalism or states rights or powers enumerated in the Constitution. He is saying that all working for others should be voluntary. This means unless you believe that paying state taxes is voluntary but federal taxes is not, taking the states rights line as the basis for his position makes no sense. Neither does your piling on comments.

It was in post 1396 where I explained how we as a people and a collection of states decide what we are willing to volunteer/allow the Feds to do.

"No, I don't think people should be forced to work for others. There are certain things we as a people and states allowed/volunteered the Fed govt to spend money on. Other people's healthcare, housing and food were not any of them. Yes, any Fed program that does so should be struck down and the power to do so returned to the states until the Constitution is amended."

Again we volunteer our rights and sovereignty to the Feds through the Amendment process. Thought I'd repost it in case you missed it. Also, of course I believe one should not be forced to labor for the benefit of another. Do you not?

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Strange, so are you saying that 750M Europeans are wrong about single payer healthcare? Are you also putting sovereignty of the states over the well-being of it's citizens?

[Strange Brew]

Strange, so are you saying that 750M Europeans are wrong about single payer healthcare? Are you also putting sovereignty of the states over the well-being of it's citizens?

750M people do not have the same system. The EU if you will is made up of smaller nation states that have the right to self determine what they want from their individual national govts (kind of like the states in the US). I put the sovereignty of the individual and their individual rights over the well being of the collective. This is America right?

To quote Ferris, "I'm not European. I don't plan on being European. So gives a c&$@ if they're socialists."

Edit: One example but the Germans have a multi-payer system.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

750M people do not have the same system. The EU if you will is made up of smaller nation states that have the right to self determine what they want from their individual national govts (kind of like the states in the US). I put the sovereignty of the individual and their individual rights over the well being of the collective. This is America right?

To quote Ferris, "I'm not European. I don't plan on being European. So gives a c&$@ if they're socialists."

Edit: One example but the Germans have a multi-payer system.

European systems are all really close in how they operate. The difference being GB which is on a pure state run NHCS.

Yes and no in Germany, you can have the state system which is technically a massive non-profit or you can have your own care which you pay for on your own. The difference between the two is minimal (hint I know people on both). The difference between them and us is massive, all are on a system of care whether the non-profit or the private. Go ahead and challenge me on the German system, I will forward what you ask to my friends who all live in Bavaria. I have even lived on their system.

To reduce the difference between them and us on a Ferris Bueller quote is immature and does the argument disservice. To sit and state that individual rights are of paramount importance over the well being of the collective you must be against a lot of things then in the government. Federal law enforcement, military, federal taxation, national parks, employment protections, federal racial protections, federal religious protections, hey you can't cherry pick stuff here, how about national highways, coast guard, the list goes on and on and on.

Shouldn't California have to pay to patrol their own beaches, why should Arizona pay for that? Vice versa for the Arizona border with Mexico, why is any state paying for that other than Arizona? We could really break this down, lets reduce it to counties at specific borders. They should be the ones paying not me.

[Strange Brew]

European systems are all really close in how they operate. The difference being GB which is on a pure state run NHCS.

Yes and no in Germany, you can have the state system which is technically a massive non-profit or you can have your own care which you pay for on your own. The difference between the two is minimal (hint I know people on both). The difference between them and us is massive, all are on a system of care whether the non-profit or the private. Go ahead and challenge me on the German system, I will forward what you ask to my friends who all live in Bavaria. I have even lived on their system.

To reduce the difference between them and us on a Ferris Bueller quote is immature and does the argument disservice. To sit and state that individual rights are of paramount importance over the well being of the collective you must be against a lot of things then in the government. Federal law enforcement, military, federal taxation, national parks, employment protections, federal racial protections, federal religious protections, hey you can't cherry pick stuff here, how about national highways, coast guard, the list goes on and on and on.

Shouldn't California have to pay to patrol their own beaches, why should Arizona pay for that? Vice versa for the Arizona border with Mexico, why is any state paying for that other than Arizona? We could really break this down, lets reduce it to counties at specific borders. They should be the ones paying not me.

So most Euros don't have a single payer system. Glad we cleared that up.

Call your friends from or who have lived in a foreign country and I'll call mine. We can play a fun game of "I know a guy"...

The movie quote was a joke.

You mentioned quite a few Fed programs. Some of which I support as they're in the Constitution. You've actually read the doc, right?

[GoMuskies]

Did you know the President gets TWO scoops of ice cream with his pie!!!! $%#! $! Pie-gate

[Caf]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd0fBXwDBmo

[RealDeal]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd0fBXwDBmo

Move along, nothing to see here.

[boozehound]

European systems are all really close in how they operate. The difference being GB which is on a pure state run NHCS.

Yes and no in Germany, you can have the state system which is technically a massive non-profit or you can have your own care which you pay for on your own. The difference between the two is minimal (hint I know people on both). The difference between them and us is massive, all are on a system of care whether the non-profit or the private. Go ahead and challenge me on the German system, I will forward what you ask to my friends who all live in Bavaria. I have even lived on their system.

To reduce the difference between them and us on a Ferris Bueller quote is immature and does the argument disservice. To sit and state that individual rights are of paramount importance over the well being of the collective you must be against a lot of things then in the government. Federal law enforcement, military, federal taxation, national parks, employment protections, federal racial protections, federal religious protections, hey you can't cherry pick stuff here, how about national highways, coast guard, the list goes on and on and on.

Shouldn't California have to pay to patrol their own beaches, why should Arizona pay for that? Vice versa for the Arizona border with Mexico, why is any state paying for that other than Arizona? We could really break this down, lets reduce it to counties at specific borders. They should be the ones paying not me.

Informative and thought provoking post. The problem with the 'let the states handle it' argument (in my opinion) is that it devolves into an argument around the matter of degree for a variety of things in which the federal government supports the states.


So most Euros don't have a single payer system. Glad we cleared that up.

Call your friends from or who have lived in a foreign country and I'll call mine. We can play a fun game of "I know a guy"...

The movie quote was a joke.

You mentioned quite a few Fed programs. Some of which I support as they're in the Constitution. You've actually read the doc, right?

Once again, you are responding to a well thought-out and fact-based post with a couple of lines that only minimally address the issues raised. You have offered almost nothing the way of a rebuttal, other than a few quips with no supporting arguments. I'm actually confused as to why you continue to participate in this conversation. You seem to lack either the willingness or ability to thoroughly respond to people's arguments. I don't see what you are getting out of this.

To address to your specific points:

(1) While many Europeans don't have a single payer system in the strictest sense of the word, their systems function like a single payer system. I think most Americans who support single payer would be fine entertaining a system like Germany has. In fact, I would wager that many people who would not necessarily support a true Canadian-style single-payer system might support something more analogous to the German system.

(2) The problem I have with the 'but the Constitution says / doesn't say' argument is the fact that the Constitution generally doesn't call out degrees, even for the things it does specifically mention. It mentions common defence (sp), but doesn't talk to the degree of defense. It also mentions 'General Welfare' several times without specificity, qualification, or degree. People who support widely available healthcare could pretty easily argue it falls under 'General Welfare.

Personally I am not a Constitutional literalist by any means, so I don't really care all that much about what it says on certain issues. I believe that the primary purpose is to lay out groundwork for how to legislate.

[SemajParlor]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd0fBXwDBmo


Who would've thought the uncontrollable egomaniac with shady ties to Russia turned out to be an uncontrollable egomaniac with shady ties to Russia?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trump-mood-sour-reports-leaked-isis-secrets-article-1.3171268

[Caf]

Dem to call for Trump's impeachment on House floor - The Hill (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/333781-dem-lawmaker-will-call-for-trumps-impeachment-on-house-floor)

And here we go. This is a sad day.

[boozehound]

This Presidency is so much more F**ked up than I thought it was going to be, and I was expecting it to be pretty F**ked up.

It's amazing to watch someone that is so incapable of adapting to their surroundings and learning from the outcomes of past behaviors. How did he think firing Comey was going to go down? How could he not have seen this. Is the Russia thing that bad that he had to do anything to try to slow the investigation down? Does he just think he can act without consequence? This would be an interesting exercise in watching a mentally defective person try to deal with an insanely public and high-pressure job if there wasn't so much at stake for our country.

[paulxu]

Some sort of weird line got crossed today.
When you have Putin defending Trump, and offering to release transcripts of the WH meeting to prove there was no classified info exchanged...you have to say WTF?

[STL_XUfan]

Some sort of weird line got crossed today.
When you have Putin defending Trump, and offering to release transcripts of the WH meeting to prove there was no classified info exchanged...you have to say WTF?

Putin is trolling us right? This has to be a troll job.

[paulxu]

I can't imagine what our allies must be thinking.

[Juice]

I can't imagine what our allies must be thinking.

Possibly as pissed as Israel not too long ago?

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-furious-with-white-house-for-leak-on-syria-strike/
http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/03/28/israels-secret-staging-ground/
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/193175#.VRMI20I-C9Y
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/229062/did-the-obama-administrations-abuse-of-foreign-intelligence-collection-start-before-trump


1) Trump is a moron. Everyone knows that.
2) I'm treating this as another media freak out until a source comes forward that isn't a former intelligence person that was working for Obama, who could similarly be "guilty" of the same shit as Trump if that source is leaking classified info to the media.

[SemajParlor]

1) Trump is a moron. Everyone knows that.

Lol

[Caf]

Possibly as pissed as Israel not too long ago?

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-furious-with-white-house-for-leak-on-syria-strike/
http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/03/28/israels-secret-staging-ground/
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/193175#.VRMI20I-C9Y
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/229062/did-the-obama-administrations-abuse-of-foreign-intelligence-collection-start-before-trump


1) Trump is a moron. Everyone knows that.
2) I'm treating this as another media freak out until a source comes forward that isn't a former intelligence person that was working for Obama, who could similarly be "guilty" of the same shit as Trump if that source is leaking classified info to the media.

On the leak, maybe, but what about the obstruction of justice?

I love these dumb justifications. "The house is on fire.""Who the hell called the fire department?!"

Let's see how low we can go before you find your principles.

[boozehound]

Possibly as pissed as Israel not too long ago?

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-furious-with-white-house-for-leak-on-syria-strike/
http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/03/28/israels-secret-staging-ground/
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/193175#.VRMI20I-C9Y
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/229062/did-the-obama-administrations-abuse-of-foreign-intelligence-collection-start-before-trump


1) Trump is a moron. Everyone knows that.
2) I'm treating this as another media freak out until a source comes forward that isn't a former intelligence person that was working for Obama, who could similarly be "guilty" of the same shit as Trump if that source is leaking classified info to the media.

Huh? Didn't like 99% of intelligence personnel work for Obama? It's not like the President completely cleans out all intelligence organization personnel when he is elected. The source is likely someone who worked for Obama, and then probably Bush before him. Maybe even Clinton and HW Bush.

Our intelligence agents have a long history of serving our Country through multiple diverse political regimes. To doubt them now, and for Donald Trump of all people, strikes me as disrespectful. These agencies are leaking because they are concerned.

Hell, look at James Comey. He may have helped Trump get elected by releasing the statement about Hillary's email investigation a few days before the election, while he kept quiet about the fact that they were investigating Trump's campaign for colluding with Russia. I think it would be hard to argue that Comey was/is 'Pro-Democrat', but now he's been fired because he was investigating Trump's regime.

[ChicagoX]

Comey has leaned right most of his career. From Politico (http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey-testimony/2016/07/what-party-is-james-comey-registered-as-225223):

Even though he has been a registered Republican for most of his adult life, FBI Director James Comey testified Thursday that he is no longer a registered member of the GOP.

"Although our politics are different — I gather you're a Republican — that correct?" Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) asked Comey in prefacing his remarks.

Comey responded, "I have been a registered Republican for most of my adult life, not registered any longer."

The FBI director, who previously served as deputy attorney general in George W. Bush's administration before President Barack Obama appointed him to his current position, donated to the presidential campaigns of John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012.

[Lloyd Braun]

If the leaks are in fact true that Trump asked Comey to go easy on Flynn...It's really only obstruction of justice because he fired Comey.

In other news this is interesting (https://www.propublica.org/article/any-half-decent-hacker-could-break-into-mar-a-lago).

[Juice]

On the leak, maybe, but what about the obstruction of justice?

I love these dumb justifications. "The house is on fire.""Who the hell called the fire department?!"

Let's see how low we can go before you find your principles.

Two can play that game. Where were yours?

[Juice]

Huh? Didn't like 99% of intelligence personnel work for Obama? It's not like the President completely cleans out all intelligence organization personnel when he is elected. The source is likely someone who worked for Obama, and then probably Bush before him. Maybe even Clinton and HW Bush.

Our intelligence agents have a long history of serving our Country through multiple diverse political regimes. To doubt them now, and for Donald Trump of all people, strikes me as disrespectful. These agencies are leaking because they are concerned.

Hell, look at James Comey. He may have helped Trump get elected by releasing the statement about Hillary's email investigation a few days before the election, while he kept quiet about the fact that they were investigating Trump's campaign for colluding with Russia. I think it would be hard to argue that Comey was/is 'Pro-Democrat', but now he's been fired because he was investigating Trump's regime.

I should have been more specific. They think the source is a former Chuck Schumer staffer, which makes this all the more interesting: http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/17/former-attorney-general-on-comeys-integrity-jims-loyalty-was-more-to-chuck-schumer/

And as I stated before, the media MIGHT have released more information than Trump: http://nypost.com/2017/05/17/the-media-might-have-revealed-more-intel-than-trump/

[Caf]

Two can play that game. Where were yours?

Weak. I'm here waiting for an actual explanation of why James Comey was fired. Enjoy sitting there whispering, "but Obama" to yourself.

[Juice]

Weak. I'm here waiting for an actual explanation of why James Comey was fired. Enjoy sitting there whispering, "but Obama" to yourself.

He was incompetent. He handled the Hillary shit and the Trump shit horribly. I'm just happy that it made it so Hillary wouldn't get elected.

[Juice]

Weak. I'm here waiting for an actual explanation of why James Comey was fired. Enjoy sitting there whispering, "but Obama" to yourself.

And if you want a "but Obama", here you go: http://www.dailywire.com/news/16533/5-times-obama-administration-leaked-classified-michael-qazvini?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=051617-news&utm_campaign=dwtwitter#

Impeach him and stuff, rabble rabble rabble...

[boozehound]

I should have been more specific. They think the source is a former Chuck Schumer staffer, which makes this all the more interesting: http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/17/former-attorney-general-on-comeys-integrity-jims-loyalty-was-more-to-chuck-schumer/

And as I stated before, the media MIGHT have released more information than Trump: http://nypost.com/2017/05/17/the-media-might-have-revealed-more-intel-than-trump/

There is A LOT to unpack in the first link. The link appears to be an article on a conservative/libertarian website and relies heavily on sources that (admittedly) have an ax to grind with respect to James Comey. It immediately gets pretty convoluted and conspiratorial. I'm not sure it's fair to call that a credible source. It seems more like a drudge report / breitbart level source to me.

The New York Post link appears to be an op/ed piece. I actually agree with the premise of that one, although I don't see it as exonerating Trump or ameliorating the impact of his indiscretions.

[Juice]

There is A LOT to unpack in the first link. The link appears to be an article on a conservative/libertarian website and relies heavily on sources that (admittedly) have an ax to grind with respect to James Comey. It immediately gets pretty convoluted and conspiratorial. I'm not sure it's fair to call that a credible source. It seems more like a drudge report / breitbart level source to me.

The New York Post link appears to be an op/ed piece. I actually agree with the premise of that one, although I don't see it as exonerating Trump or ameliorating the impact of his indiscretions.

And I'll agree on both of your points. My point is there are a lot of biased sources on both sides who have something to gain. But before everyone hollers out about impeachment, maybe we wait and see who actually reported what, what Trump actually did, etc. Again, Trump is a moron who might have did something illegal and/or dumb. But there is as good of a chance that this is another liberal/media freak out as we are accustomed to have almost daily nowadays.

[SemajParlor]

And if you want a "but Obama", here you go: http://www.dailywire.com/news/16533/5-times-obama-administration-leaked-classified-michael-qazvini?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=051617-news&utm_campaign=dwtwitter#

Impeach him and stuff, rabble rabble rabble...

Quick question, does this fall under liberal/media freak out?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/21/republican-oklahoma-lawmakers-urge-obama-impeachment-over-bathroom-directive.html

[Caf]

And if you want a "but Obama", here you go: http://www.dailywire.com/news/16533/5-times-obama-administration-leaked-classified-michael-qazvini?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=051617-news&utm_campaign=dwtwitter#

Impeach him and stuff, rabble rabble rabble...

Weird, all of those instances listed were about people other than Obama. Kinda makes you think... Unless that's just not your thing.

[boozehound]

And I'll agree on both of your points. My point is there are a lot of biased sources on both sides who have something to gain. But before everyone hollers out about impeachment, maybe we wait and see who actually reported what, what Trump actually did, etc. Again, Trump is a moron who might have did something illegal and/or dumb. But there is as good of a chance that this is another liberal/media freak out as we are accustomed to have almost daily nowadays.

You don't really have to rely (entirely) on the 'liberal media' though.

Trump tweeted that he 'appropriately' shared classified information with the Russians. There was nothing illegal there, because the President can basically disclose any classified information he wants, to anybody he wants to disclose it to, as I understand it. I would argue that sharing that information gratuitously with a political adversary before you have shared it with your allies is a pretty stupid thing to do, but he is pretty stupid. I think we can all agree on that. When you layer in the ongoing investigation against his campaign for potentially colluding with Russia it makes his comments almost mindbogglingly dumb.

The Comey thing is more nuanced, but potentially more severe. I'm interested to see what comes out of this. I will agree with you that the calls for impeachment at this point are premature, but this could very well head that way if the facts are as Comey is stating. Do you really have a hard time seeing Trump try to throw his weight around the make the investigation go away? That seems like vintage Trump to me.

[bobbiemcgee]

Trump tweeted that he 'appropriately' shared classified information with the Russians.

Info that came from an Isis embedded Israeli spy? Hate to be that guy this week. They could just kill everybody who ever remotely came in contact with their plan.
Plus, nice of the Ruskies to volunteer to tell us what happened at the meeting. Wow.

[Juice]

You don't really have to rely (entirely) on the 'liberal media' though.

Trump tweeted that he 'appropriately' shared classified information with the Russians. There was nothing illegal there, because the President can basically disclose any classified information he wants, to anybody he wants to disclose it to, as I understand it. I would argue that sharing that information gratuitously with a political adversary before you have shared it with your allies is a pretty stupid thing to do, but he is pretty stupid. I think we can all agree on that. When you layer in the ongoing investigation against his campaign for potentially colluding with Russia it makes his comments almost mindbogglingly dumb.

The Comey thing is more nuanced, but potentially more severe. I'm interested to see what comes out of this. I will agree with you that the calls for impeachment at this point are premature, but this could very well head that way if the facts are as Comey is stating. Do you really have a hard time seeing Trump try to throw his weight around the make the investigation go away? That seems like vintage Trump to me.

I stole this from someone on twitter but it applies

If Trump told Comey to "stop investigating" as Comey memo alleges then why did Comey state this on May 3 under oath? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/03/read-the-full-testimony-of-fbi-director-james-comey-in-which-he-discusses-clinton-email-investigation/?utm_term=.a4f57c61b54d

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DADYyMsUAAABJN1?format=jpg&name=large

[SemajParlor]

Take it up with the Justice Department.

[Caf]

I stole this from someone on twitter but it applies

If Trump told Comey to "stop investigating" as Comey memo alleges then why did Comey state this on May 3 under oath? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/03/read-the-full-testimony-of-fbi-director-james-comey-in-which-he-discusses-clinton-email-investigation/?utm_term=.a4f57c61b54d

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DADYyMsUAAABJN1?format=jpg&name=large

You're dodging. The memo and the firing are not proof of anything on their own. Combined and they raise a lot of questions and concerns.

[Caf]

Mueller is a good pick. Let's get to the bottom of it and put this behind us.

[Caf]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJFB6rH3z2A

[Caf]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTlQXmqFGko

[bobbiemcgee]

Jeb trump drops out of Saudi event due to "low energy".

[Caf]

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52752

CBO on the AHCA

[Snipe]

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52752

CBO on the AHCA

Do you have a link to how the CBO judged Obamacare? How did that work out?

The CBO is awesome. They can see the future. That is why they told us then that Obamacare would fall apart and insurers would run away before the whole plan imploded. Give me that link please.

I searched the site, I couldn't find it. Curious. I would really like to see the initial CBO report.

[Caf]

Do you have a link to how the CBO judged Obamacare? How did that work out?

The CBO is awesome. They can see the future. That is why they told us then that Obamacare would fall apart and insurers would run away before the whole plan imploded. Give me that link please.

I searched the site, I couldn't find it. Curious. I would really like to see the initial CBO report.

I didn't realize you are not smart. Took 1 minute to find. As you may not know, there were amendments to the bill and each has a cbo analysis. Have at it hoss.

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/111th-congress-2009-2010/costestimate/hr3962rangel0.pdf
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/111th-congress-2009-2010/costestimate/hr3962amendmentboehner0.pdf


Two caveats regarding those estimates bear emphasis:
 Many individuals and families would experience changes in premiums that
differed from the changes in average premiums in their insurance market. As
explained below, some provisions of the legislation would tend to decrease
the premiums paid by all insurance enrollees, while other provisions would
tend to increase the premiums paid by less healthy enrollees or would tend to
increase the premiums paid by enrollees in some states relative to enrollees
in other states. As a result, some individuals and families within each market
would see reductions in premiums that would be larger or smaller than the
estimated average reductions, and some people would see increases.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Little anecdote, wife and I had dinner with my Trump voting parents. We discussed the new AHCA legislation resulting in laughter from my father (very smart guy). He said the obvious in that it won't pass the Senate without massive change or a complete rewrite, but he said the solution to healthcare is obvious....single payer/medicare. Passing anything that causes people to go back to being uninsured and losing the pre-existing condition piece is political suicide.

Snipe, please read about healthcare pre-1973 and how it was provided in the US. Richard Nixon/Edgar Kaiser are absolutely the a-holes responsible for leading us to this situation.

[Juice]

Little anecdote, wife and I had dinner with my Trump voting parents. We discussed the new AHCA legislation resulting in laughter from my father (very smart guy). He said the obvious in that it won't pass the Senate without massive change or a complete rewrite, but he said the solution to healthcare is obvious....single payer/medicare. Passing anything that causes people to go back to being uninsured and losing the pre-existing condition piece is political suicide.

Snipe, please read about healthcare pre-1973 and how it was provided in the US. Richard Nixon/Edgar Kaiser are absolutely the a-holes responsible for leading us to this situation.

I'd argue it happened way before that when the government capped wages during WW2 and employers began to offer medical insurance as a benefit outside of wages to entice labor.

[bobbiemcgee]

Trump said we would have great insurance for everybody at low rates and no cuts to SS, Medicare and Medicaid.....still waiting.

[Juice]

Jesus...


Jacob Schwartz, 29, is the president of the Manhattan Young Democrats and the downstate region vice president of the New York State Young Democrats. New York Police Department investigators arrested him for downloading 3,000 images and 89 videos of child pornography, including female babies as young as 6 months old, the New York Post reported.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/de-blasio-employee-charged-child-pornography/

[SemajParlor]

Syria, Nicaragua and US has a nice ring to it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-pulls-paris-apos-voters-205919558.html

[ron meXico]

Trump said we would have great insurance for everybody at low rates and no cuts to SS, Medicare and Medicaid.....still waiting.[/QUOTE]

And giant ears said I'd have the same insurance as him my premium would go down $2500 and I'd keep my doctor. All of which I do not have so guess who's the giant jerkoff first - 19 trillion dollar man with more people on food stamps and in poverty than ever before.

[GoMuskies]

HanAssholeSolo

-2017

[STL_XUfan]

HanAssholeSolo

-2017

Yeah, that was a pretty stupid play by CNN. Feel free to report on the origin of it, and why you think it is dangerous. Threatening to DOX someone in order to stifle free speech, that is just bad optics.

[Juice]

Yeah, that was a pretty stupid play by CNN. Feel free to report on the origin of it, and why you think it is dangerous. Threatening to DOX someone in order to stifle free speech, that is just bad optics.

I fully expect CNN to reveal all of their anonymous sources now.

Also, why did the guy have to apologize? For what? That's the most harmless gif I've seen on Twitter in months.

[bobbiemcgee]

why did the guy have to apologize? For what? That's the most harmless gif I've seen on Twitter in months.

Yeah, trump didn't apologize for his "grabbing women by the pussy' comment. I thought the CNN thing was just stupid. Dumb. Hope he finds some time to run the Country soon.

[Juice]

Yeah, trump didn't apologize for his "grabbing women by the pussy' comment. I thought the CNN thing was just stupid. Dumb. Hope he finds some time to run the Country soon.

I was talking about the guy who made the gif.

[Smails]

Yeah, trump didn't apologize for his "grabbing women by the pussy' comment.


“Anyone who knows me knows these words don’t reflect who I am. I said it, I was wrong, and I apologize,” Trump said.

#fakenews

[SemajParlor]

Surely the big story is how CNN has handled the aftermath of the President posting a WWE gif bodyslamming a major news outlet

[GoMuskies]

Surely the big story is how CNN has handled the aftermath of the President posting a WWE gif bodyslamming a major news outlet

It really is.

[boozehound]

The fact that we are even having this conversation is stupid. Like, idiocracy stupid. I wish President Camacho would just stay the fu*k off twitter and stop making us all look like idiots for 2 weeks. Hell, I'd take 2 days at this point.

[GoMuskies]

The fact that we are even having this conversation is stupid.

Of course it is. As pointed out earlier, the guy's name was HanAssholeSolo. That's really all you need to know about the situation. The fact that CNN was so proud of tracking the guy down and threatening to doxx him just added to the already quite present stupidity.

[Caf]

CNN = Dumb. President Trump = Dumb. Life is a lot easier when you acknowledge that both of them suck and neither justifies the other's suckiness.

[paulxu]

the guy's name was HanAssholeSolo.

If you're the president of our country, why would you re-tweet something from somebody with this name?

[Juice]

If you're the president of our country, why would you re-tweet something from somebody with this name?

He didn't. He tweeted the gif himself from his account. And CNN might have been wrong on who made this gif anyways. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/881503147168071680

Also, the gif is pretty funny. Not genius level shit, but still pretty funny.

[GoMuskies]

He didn't. He tweeted the gif himself from his account. And CNN might have been wrong on who made this gif anyways. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/881503147168071680

Also, the gif is pretty funny. Not genius level shit, but still pretty funny.

Did it give you the sudden urge to attack a CNN reporter? Because OBVIOUSLY that's what the tweet called for.

[Juice]

Did it give you the sudden urge to attack a CNN reporter? Because OBVIOUSLY that's what the tweet called for.

Instantly...

The left wing is so full of beta nerds that they probably had never seen the Trump, Vince McMahon, Stone Cold WWE clips before.

[Caf]

IThe left wing is so full of beta nerds that they probably had never seen the Trump, Vince McMahon, Stone Cold WWE clips before.

Good one

[SemajParlor]

Good one

You just got triggered, snowflake.

[cutterX]

Seriously?

I wish the leader of the free world would spend his time more productively, like you know, what to do about the f**king nutjob in North Korea and his missiles!

[paulxu]

He didn't. He tweeted the gif himself from his account. And CNN might have been wrong on who made this gif anyways. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/881503147168071680

Also, the gif is pretty funny. Not genius level shit, but still pretty funny.

So he copied it without attribution? I'm so proud of him.

[KC4X]

In other news, Ken Blackwell ... really?!

http://www.msnbc.com/mtp-daily/watch/ken-blackwell-wh-investigation-into-voter-fraud-protects-integrity-985290819796

[Juice]

In other news, Ken Blackwell ... really?!

http://www.msnbc.com/mtp-daily/watch/ken-blackwell-wh-investigation-into-voter-fraud-protects-integrity-985290819796

When I voted for Ken Blackwell for governor it was because he was an Uncle Tom, when I didn't vote for Obama it was because I was racist.

[KC4X]

In other news, Ken Blackwell ... really?!

http://www.msnbc.com/mtp-daily/watch/ken-blackwell-wh-investigation-into-voter-fraud-protects-integrity-985290819796


When I voted for Ken Blackwell for governor it was because he was an Uncle Tom, when I didn't vote for Obama it was because I was racist.

What does that have to do with Ken Blackwell's "faulty logic"? I mean, he was Ohio Secretary of State?! If there was such a concern, especially since he touted his ability to work in a bipartisan manner so effectively, why didn't he fix the problems here, in the state he used as an example?