2016 Presidential Horse Race

[loomis41973]

PolitiFact | Fact-checking the 2016 GOP presidential candidates

You're welcome.

:hug: Thanks for the laugh. RCP

 

[loomis41973]

I don't disagree with any of the above, I even agree with the $16B in savings on the Federal government negotiating drug prices, but $16B is not what I would call "astronomical". Quite frankly in the total amount spent on Medicare and Medicare it is a rounding error. My point is that while yes we might see some savings it will insignificant when compared to how much we spend as a nation on total healthcare.

How about we do the same thing for all aspects?

 

[NDinL.A.]

Any facts to back this up or just more hate ?

Would also love you to dispute the fact what i said is true about talking points.

1. See Lax's post. It's an embarrassment to his sheep, errrrrrrrrr, followers.

2. Do you even follow Cruz? He has been saying these things forever. He is the true outsider - Washington insiders can't stand the guy. I'm no fan either - but at least he has a back bone and doesn't change with the wind like Trump. Trump has literally changed positions on issues less than hour after a debate, when his handlers make him change his stance to what is on his website. It's insane. Do more homework on Trump.

 

[IrishLax]

:hug: Thanks for the laugh. RCP

So you call out LA for not having facts to back up his statement, I immediately provide facts from the most well known non-partisan fact checker that proves his point, and you respond with "thanks for the laugh."

You do realize that this makes you look utterly foolish to everyone reading this thread, right?

 

[MJ12666]

You really don't think they could squeeze more savings? I disagree.
Why the U.S. Pays More Than Other Countries for Drugs - WSJ

Look at the chart in this WSJ article and tell me that there couldn't be significant savings. It compares Medicare pricing vs. Norway, UK and Ontario.

Also the VA bargains prices and many times get the prices 10-20% lower and they don't have the bargaining power of the single payer system.

As I noted in another response I do not disagree that the money saved would be in the neighborhood of $16-$20B. While it seems like a lot to you and I individually, compared to the total amount spent by Medicare and Medicaid (approximately $1T) it is not material. My point is that people latch onto this idea that if the government would just control drug prices it would greatly reduce your healthcare spending. This is simply not true.

 

[pkt77242]

I don't disagree with any of the above, I even agree with the $16B in savings on the Federal government negotiating drug prices, but $16B is not what I would call "astronomical". Quite frankly in the total amount spent on Medicare and Medicare it is a rounding error. My point is that while yes we might see some savings it will insignificant when compared to how much we spend as a nation on total healthcare.

But you can't compare it to all Medicare spending. The US spent something like 100 billion on drugs for Medicare so 16 Billion in savings is about 16%. Now if the US Government was responsible for buying all drugs (single payer) and saved 16%, then the number is very large. We as a country spend about 400 Billion every year on prescription drugs, so a savings of 16% is 64 billion a year. That is a large chunk of change. I would bet under a single payer system it would be more like 20-25% savings which is 80-100 Billion a year.

 

[MJ12666]

How about we do the same thing for all aspects?

Not sure what you mean regarding all aspects?

 

[loomis41973]

So you call out LA for not having facts to back up his statement, I immediately provide facts from the most well known non-partisan fact checker that proves his point, and you respond with "thanks for the laugh."

You do realize that this makes you look utterly foolish to everyone reading this thread, right?

Foolish was posting that link from RCP.....what a weak piece....

I could find another site that states the opposite.....just what it is.

Did you even bother to actually read/ click through the link you posted? All very subjective based on which way you lean. Looks at the freaking questions...what a joke if you buy this shite.

 

[Rizzophil]

1. See Lax's post. It's an embarrassment to his sheep, errrrrrrrrr, followers.

2. Do you even follow Cruz? He has been saying these things forever. He is the true outsider - Washington insiders can't stand the guy. I'm no fan either - but at least he has a back bone and doesn't change with the wind like Trump. Trump has literally changed positions on issues less than hour after a debate, when his handlers make him change his stance to what is on his website. It's insane. Do more homework on Trump.

Respectfully, who are you voting for LA?

 

[pkt77242]

As I noted in another response I do not disagree that the money saved would be in the neighborhood of $16-$20B. While it seems like a lot to you and I individually, compared to the total amount spent by Medicare and Medicaid (approximately $1T) it is not material. My point is that people latch onto this idea that if the government would just control drug prices it would greatly reduce your healthcare spending. This is simply not true.

Here is my response to that. I think comparing it to total healthcare spending isn't correct. Even if conservatively we can save 15-20% that is a large amount of money especially once you put a single payer system so it would apply to the whole country.

But you can't compare it to all Medicare spending. The US spent something like 100 billion on drugs for Medicare so 16 Billion in savings is about 16%. Now if the US Government was responsible for buying all drugs (single payer) and saved 16%, then the number is very large. We as a country spend about 400 Billion every year on prescription drugs, so a savings of 16% is 64 billion a year. That is a large chunk of change. I would bet under a single payer system it would be more like 20-25% savings which is 80-100 Billion a year.

Sorry about any misspellings but I am on my phone

 

[loomis41973]

Not sure what you mean regarding all aspects?

All aspects of government spending. A huge reason why Trump is being attacked. People don't want their free ride to end.

 

[IrishLax]

Foolish was posting that link from RCP.....what a weak piece....

I could find another site that states the opposite.....just what it is.

LOL what are on earth are you talking about? Politifact is not Real Clear Politics... you have to be trolling at this point, or you just know absolutely nothing.

Politifact is a completely reputable, non-partisan fact checking site. It has detractors on both sides of the aisle, as well as many people that respect both its mission and methods. I'm not saying they've never gotten a single thing wrong (they have) but their overall track record is great. Trying to attack the site for inherent bias is one of the silliest, weakest defenses ever.

 

[MJ12666]

But you can't compare it to all Medicare spending. The US spent something like 100 billion on drugs for Medicare so 16 Billion in savings is about 16%. Now if the US Government was responsible for buying all drugs (single payer) and saved 16%, then the number is very large. We as a country spend about 400 Billion every year on prescription drugs, so a savings of 16% is 64 billion a year. That is a large chunk of change. I would bet under a single payer system it would be more like 20-25% savings which is 80-100 Billion a year.

It is not quite that simple. For example you are ignoring the additional costs associated with implementing and administering a single payer system, so it is highly unlikely you would see $64 billion in savings.

This might surprise you but I actually have no problem with a single payer system. Further I think the government should actually build clinics which would provide free healthcare services. Medical education costs would be paid for by the government and students then would be required to serve at these clinics for minimum of let's say five years a low salary, at which point they would be free to open their own practice. This would also eliminate the need for health insurance.

Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion but I need to sign off as I need to get up early for work tomorrow.

 

[IrishLax]

HAHAHAHA I now get it! You opened the page, and knowing nothing saw where they said that they ordered candidates based on their polling order from RCP, and somehow interpreted that two mean two completely different sites owned by completely different people were the same thing.

EL OH EL.... classic low information Trump voter. So you're definitely not trolling, you're just bad at reading.

 

[loomis41973]

LOL what are on earth are you talking about? Politifact is not Real Clear Politics... you have to be trolling at this point, or you just know absolutely nothing.

Politifact is a completely reputable, non-partisan fact checking site. It has detractors on both sides of the aisle, as well as many people that respect both its mission and methods. I'm not saying they've never gotten a single thing wrong (they have) but their overall track record is great. Trying to attack the site for inherent bias is one of the silliest, weakest defenses ever.

Sooo... Did you click through and read all the questions>? Laughable. Poltifact and every other are not non-partisan. 90% on every site are paid for articles. Same goes for radio talk shows...all paid for talking points in one way or another. This all tells me that these people are terrified of the great American, Donald Trump. Scares the shit out of those that rely on the Government to pay their bills...I LOVE IT

We can agree to disagree but at the end of the day...


TRUMP 2016 MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

 

[loomis41973]

HAHAHAHA I now get it! You opened the page, and knowing nothing saw where they said that they ordered candidates based on their polling order from RCP, and somehow interpreted that two mean two completely different sites owned by completely different people were the same thing.

EL OH EL.... classic low information Trump voter. So you're definitely not trolling, you're just bad at reading.

My reading is fine. Both sites are bought and paid for. Sorry you and many others are too gullible to understand this.

 

[IrishLax]

My reading is fine.

Then how come you can't even tell what site you're looking at?

Both sites are bought and paid for.

Sorry you and many others are too gullible to understand this.

Trump supporter calling someone else gullible.

 

[loomis41973]

Cool memes, mayne. You are winning.

 

[woolybug25]

Cool memes, mayne. You are winning.

Have you ever once, even one single time, added anything of substance in your posts?

I mean... Everything I ever read from you is some brainless one liner. You're a troll at best.

and those are gifs... mayne...

 

[loomis41973]

Have you ever once, even one single time, added anything of substance in your posts?

I mean... Everything I ever read from you is some brainless one liner. You're a troll at best.

and those are gifs... mayne...

Many times...based on the reps.

We will let the sheep follow the party line.

You are right...for a change. That is a GIF. My mistake. +1 for pointing that out...you should go
to bed happy tonight.

 

[woolybug25]

Many times...based on the reps.

We will let the sheep follow the party line.

You are right...for a change. That is a GIF. My mistake.

You do realize that half the people you are babbling to are conservatives right?

Nothing is more embarrassing than a terrible poster trying to prove himself being right because he got reps. Pretty much every widely accepted posted on here (from both sides of the political spectrum) have called you out. That should outweigh any mouth breather that rep'd you but was obviously too cowardly to actually speak up and defend you publicly.

 

[loomis41973]

Have you ever once, even one single time, added anything of substance in your posts?

I mean... Everything I ever read from you is some brainless one liner. You're a troll at best.

and those are gifs... mayne...

I have MANY/a yugge number of posts that contain more than one line. Sorry your blind hatred of Donald Trump does not allow you to see this. I rarely need more than a few words to make a point...a sermon does not make your point correct.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I have MANY/a yugge number of posts that contain more than one line. Sorry your blind hatred of Donald Trump does not allow you to see this. I rarely need more than a few words to make a point...a sermon does not make your point correct.

 

[loomis41973]

You do realize that half the people you are babbling to are conservatives right?

Nothing is more embarrassing than a terrible poster trying to prove himself being right because he got reps. Pretty much every widely accepted posted on here (from both sides of the political spectrum) have called you out. That should outweigh any mouth breather that rep'd you but was obviously too cowardly to actually speak up and defend you publicly.

Silent majority "brotato chip" LOL


Well that, the popular vote, delegates.

 

[loomis41973]

Seems Cruz doesn't even know where he's from. Will that be added to the truth/lie poll?

 

[woolybug25]

My god... It's like taking to a child.

 

[loomis41973]

Good Lord, it's like talking to an idiot.


That won't get us far.


ALways weak attacks by those who don't agree, never any real points....low information, poorly educated....blah ...blah...blah.

 

[loomis41973]

Popular Vote 7.8 million to 5.7

Delegates 736 to 463

Seems like a LOT of low information, poorly educated, knuckle dragging, racist, pecker-wood, rednecks voting for Trump......that's a hell of a demographic some are painting.

 

[pkt77242]

It is not quite that simple. For example you are ignoring the additional costs associated with implementing and administering a single payer system, so it is highly unlikely you would see $64 billion in savings.

This might surprise you but I actually have no problem with a single payer system. Further I think the government should actually build clinics which would provide free healthcare services. Medical education costs would be paid for by the government and students then would be required to serve at these clinics for minimum of let's say five years a low salary, at which point they would be free to open their own practice. This would also eliminate the need for health insurance.

Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion but I need to sign off as I need to get up early for work tomorrow.

Thank you for the discussion. If you get a chance in the future could you expand upon the additional costs of administering a single payer system?

I agree that there would be some additional cost upfront to get it up and running but most projections show at worst it would break even on overhead costs and most likely would save some money (most conservative projections are a 1-3% savings, nothing drastic but that is of all healthcare spending in the US so it would still be a significant dollar amount).

 

[Buster Bluth]

ALways weak attacks by those who don't agree, never any real points....

You mean like saying one of the best fact-checking sites on the internet should be ignored because you think it's "bought and paid for"?

Popular Vote 7.8 million to 5.7

Delegates 736 to 463

Seems like a LOT of low information, poorly educated, knuckle dragging, racist, pecker-wood, rednecks voting for Trump......that's a hell of a demographic some are painting.

Ahhh using the popularity of a populist candidate to justify his support. Truly profound.