2016 Presidential Horse Race

[Rhode Irish]

So you think having the government pay for it will fix the costs?

I got ZERO faith in that idea...........

It is going to happen eventually. We are just delaying the inevitable, and in the meantime Americans are paying way too much for healthcare (at least those fortunate enough to have it) and the only people benefiting are the shareholders of health insurance companies.

I'm fortunate that I have the best healthcare available and it is provided for a very reasonable cost by my employer. If we went to single payer, I'd probably stay with my current plan and forego the "free" system even though I'd be paying for it. To me, this isn't a pocket book issue, it is a moral and ethical issue.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Exactly what legislation do you think they could pass that Obama would sign that would correct the shortcomings of Obamacare?

Well they did successfully defeat the thing corporations didn't like, the government option that the liberal wing of the Democratic Party wanted to be included in Obamacare.

In many ways Obamacare is a microcosm of America. The Conservatives and Liberals fight each other to a stalemate and so we ultimately settle for corporate domination of everything.

A corporate fraud shoved down our throats by a super majority of leftists in DC and didn't get one Republican vote?

I think we're approaching double digits for the number of times I have to correct you on the notion of the Democrats holding a super-majority while Obamacare was formed.

 

[ickythump1225]

A corporate fraud shoved down our throats by a super majority of leftists in DC and didn't get one Republican vote?

Yeah pretty much. The Democrats are owned lock, stock, and barrel by corporations. For evidence please look no further than their Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees.

So you think having the government pay for it will fix the costs?

I got ZERO faith in that idea...........

Single payer is really the only workable solution at this point. It is really the only option that can satisfy the many needs and demands of the country. Single payer is a check against the concentration of wealth and power into the hands of an increasingly smaller elite. It is also a check against the over corporatization of health care and American life in general. The "conservative" answer is usually just hand more and more money, power, and wealth into the hands of private interests because they fear government overreach.

This is why I'm not, nor have I ever really been, a conservative. Conservatives are so afraid of the government that they don't realize that big businesses and transnational corporations are just as big (if not a bigger) threat to our way of life than government. Most conservatives and libertarians are entirely blind to the threat of banking interests.

I think a lot of people forget why we have this debate over healthcare in the first place, because the system was broken to begin with. My critique of Obamacare is that it makes things worse, not better. It just doubles down on the same shitty system we've had and doesn't change the fundamental flaws that we have. I feel like most conservatives reflexively dismiss UHC because conservativism at this point is just a purity virtue signalling contest in which people have a race to see who can be the most rigid and least ideologically flexible.

 

[ickythump1225]

Well they did successfully defeat the thing corporations didn't like, the government option that the liberal wing of the Democratic Party wanted to be included in Obamacare.

In many ways Obamacare is a microcosm of America. The Conservatives and Liberals fight each other to a stalemate and so we ultimately settle for corporate domination of everything.

That's a pretty eloquent way of putting it.

 

[kmoose]

It's about the only option that includes the poor, working class, and those with pre-existing health conditions. If you've got a Republican plan that includes everyone, especially the poor, the working class, and those with pre-existing health conditions, let's hear it. I haven't heard any Republican plan that includes those groups at an affordable cost. Since you aren't in favor of raising the minimum wage, your plan will have to be affordable for those grossing less than $20,000 per year and taking home less than $15,000 per year.

It is going to happen eventually. We are just delaying the inevitable, and in the meantime Americans are paying way too much for healthcare (at least those fortunate enough to have it) and the only people benefiting are the shareholders of health insurance companies.

I'm fortunate that I have the best healthcare available and it is provided for a very reasonable cost by my employer. If we went to single payer, I'd probably stay with my current plan and forego the "free" system even though I'd be paying for it. To me, this isn't a pocket book issue, it is a moral and ethical issue.

The question posed involved fixing the problems of Obamacare, which I took to mean (among other things) bringing costs down. I don't see a single payer system bringing costs down; only transferring those costs. In fact, most things get MORE expensive when the government is paying for them. So I wasn't commenting on the moral merits of a single-payer system; only it's ability to alleviate some of the problems that we have in dealing with Healthcare.

 

[Irish Insanity]

I've never shared any of this because some here aren't even worth talking to on these topics... But for those that will listen...

We talk about uninsured vs insured and quality of care this and that.... but I question if it matters and what quality of coverage is even worth it...

My parents were forced into the exchanges after years of being happy in their long time plans... Long to short, my fathers meds, co pays and all instantly went sky high, far more than they could afford. Get this one, my father needed a procedure to 'solve' an infection... We found out after the fact that had we just paid cash as if uninsured, we'd have paid less than our co pay.... Anyway, my dad's health declined quickly with this new 'coverage'... And I'll be very clear... This bill, at best, hastened my fathers death... He died in Feburary. To sum it up, what the fvk good is 'coverage' if it does basically very little, to nothing, for you, and at times actually creates more road blocks than you'd otherwise have... But at least we were able to toss student loans into all this and lie to ourselves about giving a fvk... Right?

As far as the right offering nothing, they sure as hell did offer ideas and bills during the debates, but the left shut them out and then turned around and called them the party of 'no'. Obamacare was an all or nothing game.

1st off, I'm very sorry for your loss.

To add to your discussion, there have been multiple times where I've had a pharmacy or urgent care med service tell me to check the self pay box as it would be cheaper than the co-pay..

 

[Buster Bluth]

The question posed involved fixing the problems of Obamacare, which I took to mean (among other things) bringing costs down. I don't see a single payer system bringing costs down; only transferring those costs. In fact, most things get MORE expensive when the government is paying for them. So I wasn't commenting on the moral merits of a single-payer system; only it's ability to alleviate some of the problems that we have in dealing with Healthcare.

Then why is every single-payer system in the world more cost effective than the American system?

I've found this video to be pretty solid:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qSjGouBmo0M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[phgreek]

It is going to happen eventually. We are just delaying the inevitable, and in the meantime Americans are paying way too much for healthcare (at least those fortunate enough to have it) and the only people benefiting are the shareholders of health insurance companies.

I'm fortunate that I have the best healthcare available and it is provided for a very reasonable cost by my employer. If we went to single payer, I'd probably stay with my current plan and forego the "free" system even though I'd be paying for it. To me, this isn't a pocket book issue, it is a moral and ethical issue.

If I'm understanding this...you'd be taxed to pay for a government agency to administer a healthcare program, and for the healthcare itself. And you'd also contribute at work to your normal insurance, and stay with a private plan.

If forced, I'd do the same. I think everyone who can, would. I can't help but ponder...at what point is that attacked for being a "have" and "have nots" system for ensuring a "right". I mean I don't think it is a stretch to say the good doctors will align with private systems, and pharmacological/technological improvements will be available in the private groups first, thus the OUTCOMES will be drastically different...how long before that issue is assailed?

Folks can show me single payer charts all day...but for me, I want to see an HONEST comparison of private systems vs single payer system outcomes. Show me the metrics which provide insight into quality. There is a concept at play called best value...I'm not sure it is appropriate for healthcare, but it seems folks are going that way...my point is there is a quality component of best value

...my basic jump off point for all of this is, I've seen enough of government to know it doesn't do very many things well, and there is almost no recourse when it is obviously negligent or even criminal. Government does fine in a role of oversight and regs. ...not operations and execution.

 

[Circa]

We can keep on keeping on or.. we could go on with the shady character's of the past...<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cY0OCdHICCo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Trump Is being fed the same old Bull Shit Bush jr was in 04'

 

[kmoose]

Then why is every single-payer system in the world more cost effective than the American system?

I've found this video to be pretty solid:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qSjGouBmo0M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

You are assuming that less spending = more cost effective. I submit that that is not a given. Less spending could also = less care, or less elective procedures, or fewer cutting edge procedures.

Plus, my comments involved the AMERICAN government managing the system. If you want to let the Australian government run the American program, then go right ahead. It might actually make sense.

 

[Buster Bluth]

You are assuming that less spending = more cost effective.

It is when there isn't a significant difference in outcomes, so yes it's more cost effective.

The usual response is that the US has the world's best hospitals, like the Cleveland Clinic down the road from me. I would like to see some writing explaining why the care there would be diminished at all, especially in the absence of a particular plan. I think the scenario is especially absurd when we discuss a government option, a "buy in" to medicare, because the government isn't taking over the Cleveland Clinic...

I submit that that is not a given. Less spending could also = less care, or less elective procedures, or fewer cutting edge procedures.

It could also encourage that ol' entrepreneurial spirit and investment in the private sector to make cheaper products. When there is inelastic demand for, as the video mentions, fake hips, there isn't much of an incentive to lower the costs. When we collectively negotiate prices on the myriad types of procedures similar to fake hips, we get the same health outcome for a better price.

Then of course there is the benefit of encouraging job creation by breaking the tie between health care and one's job. Many people cannot leave their job to do something else (like start a groundbreaking business of their own) because their family's health care is tied to their employment there. That is barbaric in my view. It's too often a ball and chain.

Plus, my comments involved the AMERICAN government managing the system. If you want to let the Australian government run the American program, then go right ahead. It might actually make sense.

How will the American government ever get its act together when we allow corporations to so easily divide us with hypothetical scare tactics like these?

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Trump blames 'disgusting' media: 'I would be beating Hillary by 20' - POLITICO

It's the media's fault. Couldn't possibly be the utter ridiculousness coming out of his mouth on a daily basis.

 

[Bubbles]

Trump blames 'disgusting' media: 'I would be beating Hillary by 20' - POLITICO

It's the media's fault. Couldn't possibly be the utter ridiculousness coming out of his mouth on a daily basis.

Well...considering they have come out and admitted to colluding with, drooling over and giving reach arounds to Hillary...I'd say a little of column A, little of column B.

 

[ickythump1225]

Trump blames 'disgusting' media: 'I would be beating Hillary by 20' - POLITICO

It's the media's fault. Couldn't possibly be the utter ridiculousness coming out of his mouth on a daily basis.

The media at this point is the American version of Pravda for the Clinton Campaign. The 2A comment is the best example. That was a 100% media created "controversy. The "Obama and Hillary confounded ISIS" is another great example. The media went to autistic levels of hyperliteralism to construe those comments as anything other than sarcastic rhetorical quips. The DNC leaks showed strong evidence of media collusion with the Clinton campaign and basically all anyone has to do is flip on the news for confirmation of that fact.

Is all the media's fault? No of course not. The Trump campaign has misstepped. The Khan situation is an example of that. Trump had a path to victory in that situation and squandered it, BUT the Khan situation also shows how high the stakes for Trump with the media. If Hillary said something similar it would be swept under the rug. The media will assail Trump day and night for anything.

Whether you like Trump or not you have to admit this is his best strategy moving forward. Since he cannot count on fair coverage (or anything resembling objectivity) he has to undermine the public's (tenuous at best) trust in the media.

And before you just say "Oh another Trumpkin just complaining about the media," even members of the media are admitting it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/b...oudly-provocative-presidential-candidate.html
To fight Trump, journalists have dispensed with objectivity - LA Times

From 2014 but still relevant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ESUUhncaYk

 

[MJ12666]

It is when there isn't a significant difference in outcomes, so yes it's more cost effective.

The usual response is that the US has the world's best hospitals, like the Cleveland Clinic down the road from me. I would like to see some writing explaining why the care there would be diminished at all, especially in the absence of a particular plan. I think the scenario is especially absurd when we discuss a government option, a "buy in" to medicare, because the government isn't taking over the Cleveland Clinic...



It could also encourage that ol' entrepreneurial spirit and investment in the private sector to make cheaper products. When there is inelastic demand for, as the video mentions, fake hips, there isn't much of an incentive to lower the costs. When we collectively negotiate prices on the myriad types of procedures similar to fake hips, we get the same health outcome for a better price.

Then of course there is the benefit of encouraging job creation by breaking the tie between health care and one's job. Many people cannot leave their job to do something else (like start a groundbreaking business of their own) because their family's health care is tied to their employment there. That is barbaric in my view. It's too often a ball and chain.



How will the American government ever get its act together when we allow corporations to so easily divide us with hypothetical scare tactics like these?

Assuming that the Cleveland Clinic became part of the government run system it is quite likely that the care associated with the clinic would diminish over time. What is not generally discussed regarding the UK's system is that there is a parallel private system. Individuals can opt-out of the NHS government run system for the parallel private system to receive their medical care.

NHS patients wait an average of about eight weeks for treatments that require admission to a hospital, four weeks for out-patient treatments and two weeks for diagnostic tests and while NHS patients have a choice of hospitals, they cannot always choose their specialist. Those individuals who opt out of NHS for the private healthcare system can choose their specialists and avoid the waiting lists for non-emergency procedures. Given that the doctors in the NHS system are employees of the government it is likely that over time the better doctors at the Cleveland Clinic would eventually migrate over to the private parallel system where they would have more freedom and most likely a higher level of compensation.

 

[MJ12666]

Is that what I said?

I'm no Obamacare fan, as I hope I've shown over time, but it's not like the Republicans are offering jack shit here. And why would they? They can sit there and bash the program daily without ever trying to fix anything./QUOTE]

Exactly what legislation do you think they could pass that Obama would sign that would correct the shortcomings of Obamacare?

Well they did successfully defeat the thing corporations didn't like, the government option that the liberal wing of the Democratic Party wanted to be included in Obamacare.

In many ways Obamacare is a microcosm of America. The Conservatives and Liberals fight each other to a stalemate and so we ultimately settle for corporate domination of everything.

I think we're approaching double digits for the number of times I have to correct you on the notion of the Democrats holding a super-majority while Obamacare was formed.

In response to your original post stating that "I'm no Obamacare fan, as I hope I've shown over time, but it's not like the Republicans are offering jack shit here" I asked exactly what legislation do you think Republicans could pass that Obama would sign that would correct the shortcomings of Obamacare?. You did not provide an example and I am sorry but I really don't see what the "notion of the Democrats holding a super-majority while Obamacare was formed" has anything to do with the current Republicans passing legislation to correct the shortcomings of Obamacare. I think you are confusing me with another poster.

 

[phgreek]

You are assuming that less spending = more cost effective. I submit that that is not a given. Less spending could also = less care, or less elective procedures, or fewer cutting edge procedures.

Plus, my comments involved the AMERICAN government managing the system. If you want to let the Australian government run the American program, then go right ahead. It might actually make sense.

see link...I really don't know where webMD comes down on the political spectrum. I suppose it could be argued they have an interest to continue private insurance...still the information in the link is relevant to the concerns of many.


http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/851264

 

[Buster Bluth]

In response to your original post stating that "I'm no Obamacare fan, as I hope I've shown over time, but it's not like the Republicans are offering jack shit here" I asked exactly what legislation do you think Republicans could pass that Obama would sign that would correct the shortcomings of Obamacare?. You did not provide an example and I am sorry but I really don't see what the "notion of the Democrats holding a super-majority while Obamacare was formed" has anything to do with the current Republicans passing legislation to correct the shortcomings of Obamacare. I think you are confusing me with another poster.

I believe I provided exactly that. The Republicans orchestrated an entire movement to get the government/public option eliminated from Obamacare.

Fox News went so far as to issue a memo to their crews to never use the "public option" verbage and use only "government option" because one was favored in polls and one wasn't, thus driving up the negatives for the measure.

The supermajority comment was to another poster who was quoted...

 

[gkIrish]

I maintain that what Google has been doing is unethical.

 

[phgreek]

I maintain that what Google has been doing is unethical.

To Facebook and Google...if you are conservative, YOU are the enemy. Stop supporting them.

on another note:

I was listening to Hillary Clinton speak in Scranton...and she handed the mic to Granpa Joe. He said something akin to ..."the people of Scranton are gritty, tough, etc. etc. and they are made of the same stuff as Hillary Clinton"....and no one ran on stage and slapped him for that insult...Scranton has changed.

 

[RDU Irish]

Philly will report last - she will get how ever many votes she needs to win PA. JFK approves this message.

 

[GoIrish41]

Philly will report last - she will get how ever many votes she needs to win PA. JFK approves this message.

Pfft. She's up by 11 points in PA right now. I think if she were going to cheat, it would be in a place that she has to cheat, not where she is clearly ahead.

 

[gkIrish]

Pfft. She's up by 11 points in PA right now. I think if she were going to cheat, it would be in a place that she has to cheat, not where she is clearly ahead.

I think rationalizing Hillary cheating in any form is no different than kmoose rationalizing some of the things the Donald says.

 

[GoIrish41]

I think rationalizing Hillary cheating in any form is no different than kmoose rationalizing some of the things the Donald says.

Who is rationalizing? I'm just stating facts. Trump is getting killed in PA in the polls right now. His comments about cheating being the only way she wins are dumb as hell.

 

[phgreek]

Pfft. She's up by 11 points in PA right now. I think if she were going to cheat, it would be in a place that she has to cheat, not where she is clearly ahead.

This is probably True...

But the returns from Philly last 2 cycles were funny. Mccain got zero votes in 57 divisions and Romney got zero votes in 59. You mean to tell me there wasn't a single conservative latino vote in any of those divisions? Thats not the Philly I know. Numerous Cuban and Puerto Rican families throughout the city is what I recall, and chances are some are conservative.

At the very least someone needs to ask some questions and maybe provide some supervision there, because I think it is possible you have either fraud or intimidation to come up with that many 0s.

 

[gkIrish]

Who is rationalizing? I'm just stating facts. Trump is getting killed in PA in the polls right now. His comments about cheating being the only way she wins are dumb as hell.

To me it sounds like "we all know Hillary is willing to cheat but she is not dumb enough to do it in a state where she has a significant lead and p.s. I'm voting for her anyway even though she is a cheater."

Rationalizing was probably not the right word.

 

[EddytoNow]

Philly will report last - she will get how ever many votes she needs to win PA. JFK approves this message.

There's no need to cheat. The democratic policies are just more appealing than the same old recycled Republican policy of giving more tax breaks to the rich. Couple that with the Republicans' absolutely terrible candidate, a man who insults everyone that doesn't bow down in his presence, and why would anyone need to cheat to win. The Republicans are gift-wrapping this presidential election for the Democrats.

 

[GoIrish41]

To me it sounds like "we all know Hillary is willing to cheat but she is not dumb enough to do it in a state where she has a significant lead and p.s. I'm voting for her anyway even though she is a cheater."

Rationalizing was probably not the right word.

I suppose it could sound like that if if you really want it to. As a registered voter in PA, I can say with confidence that he will not win here. The suggestion that she will have to cheat is absurd given her double digit lead. It sounds to me like you are trying to pre-position excuses for yet another GOP loss in a national election. I'm voting for Hillary because she is the only sane candidate remaining who can actually win the election. Trump is the worst candidate I've seen in my lifetime.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

This is probably True...

But the returns from Philly last 2 cycles were funny. Mccain got zero votes in 57 divisions and Romney got zero votes in 59. You mean to tell me there wasn't a single conservative latino vote in any of those divisions? Thats not the Philly I know. Numerous Cuban and Puerto Rican families throughout the city is what I recall, and chances are some are conservative.

At the very least someone needs to ask some questions and maybe provide some supervision there, because I think it is possible you have either fraud or intimidation to come up with that many 0s.

This has been investigated. It's a feasible outcome.

2012 Voter Fraud : snopes.com

Fact Check: Email rounds up all the voter fraud in 2012 presidential election -- or does it? | jacksonville.com

No. 1: In 59 voting districts in the Philadelphia region, Obama received 100 percent of the votes with not a single vote recorded for Romney. (A mathematical and statistical impossibility.)

It is true that 59 voting divisions in Philadelphia recorded no votes for Romney, but it wasn’t statistically impossible, according to research done by The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Obama received more than 90 percent of the vote in more than half of Philadelphia’s 66 wards and got more than 99 percent in seven of them. The newspaper reported that the wards were clustered in almost exclusively black sections of West and North Philadelphia. The Inquirer studied voter registration lists (which aren’t necessarily accurate) that showed 12 Republicans lived in the 28th Ward’s 3rd division, for example. The Inquirer was unable to find any of them by calling or visiting their homes, it reported in a Nov. 12 article. In another ward, one voter told the paper that he knows he’s a registered Republican but “he’s never voted for one.”

In addition, in 2008, John McCain got zero votes in 57 Philadelphia voting divisions.

“Many parts of Philadelphia and other big cities simply lack Republican voters, a fact of campaigning that has been true since Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal,” the Inquirer quoted Jonathan Rodden, a political science professor at Stanford University, as saying.

It wasn’t a mathematical impossibility.

 

[drayer54]

The Journal urged Trump's backers to push the candidate to conduct himself with a more presidential demeanor and begin running a more disciplined campaign.

"If they can’t get Mr. Trump to change his act by Labor Day, the GOP will have no choice but to write off the nominee as hopeless and focus on salvaging the Senate and House and other down-ballot races," it said.

Fix campaign or step aside, Wall Street Journal tells Trump | Reuters

AMEN!

I think the GOP should dump him fast. I'm not sure how late they can change the ballot.