Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12142
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:41 am

EA CO AS wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Let me be more specific, hospitalized healthcare, healthcare which cost a lot and thus doesn't come out of the pocket of the people whom benefit from it. So 3 countries where that works.


May I ask what this has to do with my point that Trump ably answered the question of how he planned to improve the current U.S. healthcare system over the colossal failure known as the Affordable Care Act, or "Obamacare" ?


Does the Trump "plan" provide a solution for that? I know too little of the inner workings of Affordable Care Act to answer if it is a failure or not, but America was one of a few countries where healthcare insurance wasn't wide spread, and I think that in a first world country (well everyone actually) everyone should be able to go to the doctors when needed.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15796
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 8:32 am

Dutchy wrote:
I know too little of the inner workings of Affordable Care Act to answer if it is a failure or not


Yet I'm sure you're aware that in the U.S. we do not have nor believe in a socialized healthcare system. People are responsible for paying for their own care, or getting insurance (either as an employment benefit, or on the open market). In any event, that insurance available on the open market is hampered by regulations that do not permit insurance companies to compete effectively, driving up premiums and overall costs.

And again, Trump wants to peel back those regulations, allowing free competition in the marketplace to improve quality of care and lower costs.

Just as other deregulated industries have done.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
blueflyer
Posts: 4352
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:17 am

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 8:42 am

EA CO AS wrote:
Food is a necessity as well, but there's no law preventing companies from selling food across state lines, competing on price, etc.But like food, there IS a market for it, and market economics come into play. Try again.

Grocery stores are locally regulated. Try again!

Consumers may cross state lines to shop for groceries, but grocery stores need state- or locally-issued licenses and permits, such as health permit, liquor license, dairy retail license, etc, depending on what exactly they sell. A license from another state, or another city even, isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

If you want to know what a healthcare market operating across state borders looks like, the credit card market provides the answer. Why are card issuing banks based in Delaware or South Dakota? Because the states have no limit on interest rates. Many other states do, but since card issuing banks are allowed to operate across state lines, it doesn't matter. The "choice" this "competitive" market gives consumers is either a credit card with no limit, or no credit card.

If we allow health insurance companies to operate across state lines, one state will adopt a law allowing issuers to cancel a policy at any time for any reason, and every health insurance company will move over there. So pro-consumers indeed.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12142
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 8:44 am

EA CO AS wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
I know too little of the inner workings of Affordable Care Act to answer if it is a failure or not


Yet I'm sure you're aware that in the U.S. we do not have nor believe in a socialized healthcare system.


Well that is a grossly oversimplification, but heck it is your country, so you can do with it what you want. All I can say, I find it peculiar that the American society is like it is, more over when you find that the majority of Americans aren't so rightwing as one might assume by watching American politics. The Southern states yes, but the ocean states and the northern states think not much different then people in Europe.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15796
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 8:49 am

blueflyer wrote:
Grocery stores are locally regulated. Try again!


The products aren't, and can be purchased and sold by any retailer in any state or municipality. Try again!
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12142
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 9:20 am

EA CO AS wrote:
blueflyer wrote:
Grocery stores are locally regulated. Try again!


The products aren't, and can be purchased and sold by any retailer in any state or municipality. Try again!


You see no problem what so ever with a totally privatized healthcare system?
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
coolian2
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:34 pm

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 9:59 am

My Donald Trump demographic father called me after the debate. He said he'd never had such a laugh, and the only reason he didn't laugh more is because it wasn't staged comedy.

It's so bad I'm actually not sure it isn't.

If Trump stopped after two sentences, he'd probably come out okay. The issue is...he just goes, and it gets progressively worse.
Q300/ATR72-600/737-200/-300/-400/-700/-800/A320/767-200/-300/757-200/777-300ER/
747-200/-300/-400/ER/A340-300/A380-800/MD-83/-88/CRJ-700/-900
 
dragon-wings
Posts: 4167
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2001 4:55 am

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 10:04 am

I don't know much when it comes to the Affordable Heath Care Act, but if the Republican repeal it wouldn't the millions that now have health care because of Obama Care loose it?


Did anyone else think Trump threw Pence under the bus last night when asked about Syria? He said him and Pence never talked about Syria, but Pence has said that the US should meet Russian "provocations" with strength and use force if necessary. But Trump disagrees with Pence and last night said Russia is not the problem in Syria.


Also did anyone find Trump a little creepy the way he was standing behind Clinton when she was answering questions? I did.
Don't give up don't ever give up - Jim Valvano
 
cpd
Posts: 6621
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 10:23 am

777Jet wrote:
One of the two leftist commentators on our leftist news channel ABC called the debate a draw, the other gave it to Trump by a small margin.

Good day, folks!




ABC, leftist? What with the likes of Chris Uhlmann, Gerard Henderson and the numerous right wing and ultra right wing mouth pieces on that channel. Some days you'd be forgiven for thinking it was a right wing channel...

If Clinton wins with a big enough majority, tgen Trump and all opponents should be locked up. For no other reason than Trump proposed it first. I'm sure some trumped up allegations could be made...

If only we could just put a big fence around the place and let Trump toss his toys out of the playpen for four years and then he'll be kicked out. Except he'll have nuke weapons and would be silly enough to use them.

I don't care about Trump, but the security of a huge nuclear arsenal is a worry.
Last edited by cpd on Mon Oct 10, 2016 10:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12142
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 10:25 am

dragon-wings wrote:
I don't know much when it comes to the Affordable Heath Care Act, but if the Republican repeal it wouldn't the millions that now have health care because of Obama Care loose it?


Did anyone else think Trump threw Pence under the bus last night when asked about Syria? He said him and Pence never talked about Syria, but Pence has said that the US should meet Russian "provocations" with strength and use force if necessary. But Trump disagrees with Pence and last night said Russia is not the problem in Syria.


Also did anyone find Trump a little creepy the way he was standing behind Clinton when she was answering questions? I did.


What I find "funny" is that Trump isn't that clear about anything, except perhaps the stupid wall with Mexico. Except one thing, his campaign seems to favorite Russia. One have to aks himself what is the relationship between Putin regime and the Trump campaign?
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13588
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 10:38 am

einsteinboricua wrote:
flyingturtle wrote:
Let me begin with the ending. The guy asked what the candidates respect in each other - a very good question, especially after all these vile happenings during the last few days. And yes, Trump really mastered that question. He said Clinton is a hard worker, does not quit, and she's determined (I'm not citing verbatim). And Clinton, moments before? She only admires his children! And drones on at length on her responsibility to create a future for the next generation! WTF? WTF???

What do YOU admire/respect about Trump?

And here's another angle to look at the answer. Yes, Trump gets bonus points with that answer which was a very in-depth and honest answer. I respect that from him. But now he's provided Clinton with campaign material. Clinton sells herself as a fighter and her opponent just accepted that and said it himself. No way to walk it back now.


And in the first debate he attacked her on her "stamina", so another contradiction from him.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
QF29
Posts: 130
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 7:10 am

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 10:59 am

cpd wrote:
777Jet wrote:
One of the two leftist commentators on our leftist news channel ABC called the debate a draw, the other gave it to Trump by a small margin.

Good day, folks!




ABC, leftist? What with the likes of Chris Uhlmann, Gerard Henderson and the numerous right wing and ultra right wing mouth pieces on that channel. Some days you'd be forgiven for thinking it was a right wing channel...


I think he is referring to the Australian ABC (State Broadcaster)

Also, Trump parading those women around to somehow make up for his sexist comments is disgusting
A318/19/20/21, 330-2/3, 345, 380, B717 B737-4/6/7/8/9 B763 B743/4 B777-2/3 B787-8/9, Q-400 C172S, PA-28, Super Decathlon
 
User avatar
HGL
Posts: 330
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 3:25 am

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 11:13 am

QF29 wrote:
cpd wrote:
777Jet wrote:
One of the two leftist commentators on our leftist news channel ABC called the debate a draw, the other gave it to Trump by a small margin.

Good day, folks!


ABC, leftist? What with the likes of Chris Uhlmann, Gerard Henderson and the numerous right wing and ultra right wing mouth pieces on that channel. Some days you'd be forgiven for thinking it was a right wing channel...


I think he is referring to the Australian ABC (State Broadcaster)



I think cpd is probably aware of that as both Uhlmann and Henderson are Australian. I too have to laugh when accusations of left-wing bias are levied against the ABC. It has included some very right-wing characters in its board of governors, including the likes of Janet Albrechtsen who had described the ABC as a "Soviet-style workers collective". Fancy that: a workers collective led by someone who would become a Director of Institute of Public Affairs.
Qui omnes despicit, omnibus displicit.
 
dragon-wings
Posts: 4167
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2001 4:55 am

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 11:14 am

QF29 wrote:
cpd wrote:
777Jet wrote:
One of the two leftist commentators on our leftist news channel ABC called the debate a draw, the other gave it to Trump by a small margin.

Good day, folks!




ABC, leftist? What with the likes of Chris Uhlmann, Gerard Henderson and the numerous right wing and ultra right wing mouth pieces on that channel. Some days you'd be forgiven for thinking it was a right wing channel...


I think he is referring to the Australian ABC (State Broadcaster)

Also, Trump parading those women around to somehow make up for his sexist comments is disgusting


And back in the 1990's Trump was defending Bill Clinton and finding sympathy for Hillary. He also dismissed Bill's accusers, the same ones at his press conference last night.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/09/politics/ ... index.html
Don't give up don't ever give up - Jim Valvano
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4442
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 11:32 am

DocLightning wrote:
Actually, it sounds a bit like Russia.

I guess that figures given that Trump is a well known Putin fanboy.

blueflyer wrote:
If you want to know what a healthcare market operating across state borders looks like, the credit card market provides the answer. Why are card issuing banks based in Delaware or South Dakota? Because the states have no limit on interest rates. Many other states do, but since card issuing banks are allowed to operate across state lines, it doesn't matter. The "choice" this "competitive" market gives consumers is either a credit card with no limit, or no credit card.

Somewhat related to this; the law change that allowed credit cards to be sold across state lines went a huge way to making existing anti usury laws ineffective and was a catalyst to many states repealing them. The bible ambiguous on many issues but it is quite clear in its stance on usury, so I'm surprised that the bilbe bashers who are so loudmouthed when it comes to many social issues aren't against such legislation. Don't think I've ever seen a evangelical conservative politician/lawmaker/pundit/lobbyist ever make a fuss about it.

coolian2 wrote:
If Trump stopped after two sentences, he'd probably come out okay. The issue is...he just goes, and it gets progressively worse.

There's certain talking points that he has that resonate well though. In the first debate his arguments on trade deals, free trade, China & the Yuan and the effect that these have had on the middle class was very well received. Surprising that he didn't try and get more milage out of them this time round, though Hillary shut him down when she pointed out that he used subsidized Chinese steel in some of his buildings.

cpd wrote:
ABC, leftist? What with the likes of Chris Uhlmann, Gerard Henderson and the numerous right wing and ultra right wing mouth pieces on that channel. Some days you'd be forgiven for thinking it was a right wing channel...

The paradox of state broadcasters in the Anglosphere; right winger parties/government keep threatening to shut them down or slash their budget if they don't report favourably on said parties/governments.

cpd wrote:
If Clinton wins with a big enough majority, then Trump and all opponents should be locked up. For no other reason than Trump proposed it first. I'm sure some trumped up allegations could be made...

Whilst I certainly wouldn't advocate for such retribution, his 'University' is a straight up fraud, so there's that.

QF29 wrote:
Also, Trump parading those women around to somehow make up for his sexist comments is disgusting

The irony of him, someone under fire for his groping of some lady, using those alleged sexual assault victims as human shields is not lost on me. It also says quite a lot about them and their trustworthiness that they were willing to be part of it. Also, Trump was mocking the same victims back in 1990.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O50NvGrOx2k

All of this is irrelevant, since Trump is a phoney sent in by the Clintons IMO.
First to fly the 787-9
 
QF29
Posts: 130
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 7:10 am

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 11:56 am

HGL wrote:
QF29 wrote:
cpd wrote:

ABC, leftist? What with the likes of Chris Uhlmann, Gerard Henderson and the numerous right wing and ultra right wing mouth pieces on that channel. Some days you'd be forgiven for thinking it was a right wing channel...


I think he is referring to the Australian ABC (State Broadcaster)



I think cpd is probably aware of that as both Uhlmann and Henderson are Australian.


Yeah my mistake, I do deel like quite the idiot now :lol:

In regards to the comments that Trump made on the Canadian healthcare system, there would be riots if a US style healthcare system were to be intorduced (or in any other first world country really). It may not be perfect but its certainly centuries ahead of what the GOP could come up with. People shouldnt be forced to pay for lifesaving medical treatment, peroid.

I just quickly noticed trump was without his wedding ring during the debate. Is this something new or did he never wear one in the first place?
A318/19/20/21, 330-2/3, 345, 380, B717 B737-4/6/7/8/9 B763 B743/4 B777-2/3 B787-8/9, Q-400 C172S, PA-28, Super Decathlon
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19436
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 12:47 pm

QF29 wrote:
I just quickly noticed trump was without his wedding ring during the debate. Is this something new or did he never wear one in the first place?


Apparently it's harder to just grab a woman's pussy when you have your wedding ring on.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6374
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 2:21 pm

Dreadnought wrote:
Today you can still call around and get a doctor's appointment with no insurance and the average price of that visit is $160.


I have been on 100% government funded/ provided healthcare for most of the past 44 years. For 20 years I was in the US Navy - a fully government owned, government run medical system. It was mostly satisfactory. I couldn't choose my own doctor, my own primary healthcare provider, which hospital I went to - all the horrors people describe as the worst things about government run healthcare. I've seen mostly very good healthcare providers - but like any system there were some people who should not have been there.

From 1992-1999, my healthcare 'insurance' was Champus and Tricare - military retiree insurance provided by the government. It functions much like Medicare - but fewer doctors will accept assignment. Living in an area with relatively few military retirees - I was on a cash pay basis for medical care most of that time. (Big corporate hospital companies did accept assignment of Tricare).

From 1999-2009, my healthcare insurance was Aetna and United Healthcare through a Fortune 100 employer. It was almost as restrictive as to what doctors I could see, what hospitals I could use, what drugs I could take - as being in the military. I found it no greater 'freedom' to choose my healthcare providers than in the past. Nor could I negotiate any prices. In 2001 I had a major medical illness. The total hospital and doctor bills for the nine month episode and treatment were a bit over $450,000. My primary health insurance paid about $320,000. Tricare as a supplement paid about $60,000. I was placed on short-term disability for four months by my company - 50% of my salary - which resulted after paying health insurance, social security, income tax in a net $135.00 every two weeks. The company did allow me to come back to work a limited schedule at full pay. I had to pay about $80,000 on a gross salary that year of $53,000.

I'm not complaining about the insurance and the coverage. I got the treatment I needed to save my life. It just took all my savings and my wife's savings to stay above water that year, and after borrowing money to meet payment demands - five years to pay everything off. The $80,000 cost me close to $102,000 when everything was finished. At least I didn't have to worry about losing my job because I was sick. It was that type of company at the time.

After early 2009 - I'm back to Tricare, and go on Medicare in a year. (My wife is already on Medicare.)

Thanks to the efforts of a couple senators who pushed some legislation through Congress in 2002, Tricare now has to be accepted by any doctor, hospital, etc which accepts Medicare. John McCain proposed the legislation when so many reservists were called up for service in preparation for Iraq, and their families were being left with medical insurance coverage that local doctors would not accept.

He needed a partner to get the legislation through the Senate - and he turned to a Senator with great experience and expertise in healthcare - Hillary Clinton. Together they pushed the bill through the Senate, and got their party behind the bill in the House.

Tricare is a 'single payer' system - though the country is divided into four or five regions and each region has a different insurance company running the claims and payments division. It used to be UHC for my region, right now it is Humana. (Prescriptions are covered under a nationwide contract - used to be Medco until Express Scripts bought them.)

However, that has left me with my endocrinologist who does not accept my insurance. Since he is the only one who figured out my real issues and how to control them back in 2001 - I pay his $225 per visit - which is about half what he used to bill my insurance company. The part which bothers me is that he used to receive about $200 from UHC when I had that insurance.

I did engage in competitive price shopping for medical services this year. I decided that getting my teeth pulled and dentures made in Mexico was significantly cheaper than in the US - at least 60% cheaper than any price I found in the US. I had cataract surgery on both eyes this summer. That was mostly covered by Tricare. I did pay for a supplemental LRI procedure on each eye which eliminated my astigmatism. We were very price conscious when shopping for hearing aids for my wife, but did choose a higher cost brand for the quality. (My hearing aids are supplied/ covered by the VA because of damage to my ears from working around jet engines, two major concussions received in the line of duty, one while fire fighting, the other on Oct 23, 1983 in Beirut.)

That is just to establish my background in healthcare and understanding of the process..
-------------------------------------------
Competition

Selling insurance across state lines - this is a primary goal of the Bill Clinton and Democrat Party health care plans/ goals. It was stopped from being included in ACA / Obamacare by the conservatives/ Republican Party. Mandating at the federal level that insurance has to be transportable across state lines is viewed by the conservative/ Republican Party as federal interference in States Rights. Just within the past two months - Texas Governor Greg Abbot was speaking against the ACA - saying the state insurance commission must be able to control what insurance is sold in the state. If there is nationwide coverage and competition for policies - that will result in the people of Texas being forced to accept lower quality insurance for higher prices.

One of the 'good' things about the ACA/ Obamacare is the exchanges. No they don't function extremely well. However they do allow a person to search ONE website and see the prices of several different companies side by side.

Compare that to the situation with Medicare Supplements (a system of national health care forced on the population by President Bush's 2003 changes that allowed companies to dump retirees from their healthcare plans on Medicare).

I just came from a weeklong gathering of RVers - mostly retirees - in Oklahoma. It was interesting to hear the longer term retirees complaining about how their healthcare coverage and options went downhill in 2004-5-6. How the mid-term retirees who have always had to deal with supplements - and the new to Medicare people complaining that the Medicare Supplement was "A worse mess than Obamacare - at least there I could compare plans side by side".

But even then - the supplement plans have state by state variations.

Competition in medical care costs will never meet the goals of people seeking to reduce price in the US:

1) Medical Insurance will always be a monopolistic system in the US - with definite collusion between the companies about rates and coverages. They wrote most of the ACA - and got what they wanted mostly. Even if policies are sold across state lines - the goal of insurance will remain the same - to make profits for the insurance company.

2) Major hospital systems will always have a take it or leave it policy. This country has long needed public hospitals - government run with government employees - to cover those with limited means. Parkland in Dallas is a government owned, government run, government employee hospital. Many of the very best hospitals in this nation are city, county, state supported institutions. Other major healthcare systems run by religious groups function in the same basic way. As long as those hospitals exist - the corporate for-profit hospitals do not have to modify their pricing, services, system to deal with 'low value' customers. (Though I'm a bit concerned at a trend in Texas to turn long running religious supported hospitals into 'for profit' corporations.)

3) Prescriptions - as long as conservative/ Republican members of Congress and liberal/Democrat members of Congress accept money from drug companies for campaign donations (Citizens United was a victory for the drug companies) we will never have competition in the US for prescription prices. There will be outrage at issues such as the recent one over the EpiPen. But no real change. (There already existed several good, much cheaper options to the EpiPen - people just didn't want the 'inconvenience'). Donald Trump cannot change the bought and paid for Congress insistence on protecting the drug companies in the US from price competition across national borders. (Yes, I do buy some of my drugs in Mexico at substantially reduced prices. No, I cannot buy any narcotic type drug and bring it back. But I can get Metformin at 1/3 the US pharmacy price.)

(Side note - getting old S***KS - I never ever considered spending as much money - either actual dollars or percentage of income/cash - on illegal drugs when I was young as I now have to spend on prescription drugs.)

4) Point of Sale - this is the only real competition possible in the US - as I said above - reducing the amount of money your individual doctor receives. To most people doctors are like Congressmen. We complain about their costs, their way of doing business, etc. We listen to them complain about over regulation, forms and such. But at the end of the day - we don't want our doctor to be the one where the pressure to reduce prices falls.

I do sympathize that a doctor's office has to understand between 15 and 20 different forms/ submission systems - a different one for each insurance company. At least Medicare/Tricare are single electronic submission - single payer systems. Single payer is a great advantage for a healthcare provider.

No matter what he says, Donald Trump cannot change three of the four major sources of healthcare in the US. His party opposed any changes to the big three - and he won't get the support he needs to make any real changes.

As I said above and many times, Trump does not demonstrate a knowledge of how limited his power to actually make decisions and implement them will be as President.

Notice that Hillary always says "We will work to ....." and Donald says "I will do ....."

----------------------------------------

Side Note #2 - I do find it dismaying that people do not realize that they will never have healthcare that they do not pay for. If the company pays it, you accept lower wages and restrictions on what coverage you can have and where you can go. That is what we accepted serving in the US Navy/ military. That is what I accepted working for a major US based international corporation. If the government pays for healthcare - you pay for it in taxes.

Health insurance only spreads the risks across a wide group of people. Most of the people must get less service than the premiums they pay for an insurance company to stay in business. When we were/ are young and healthy - we pay a lot more than we 'use' - so that when we are old, the insurance will be there when we need it.

Health care is never free. All insurance does is provide a bureaucratic layer to take 40-60% of the money paid for healthcare and divert it to support that administrative function (which includes profits for investors) rather than transferring the money to the healthcare providers.

It doesn't matter if the bureaucracy is government or a private corporation - the costs and 'efficiencies' are the same.
Not all who wander are lost.
 
Hillis
Topic Author
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 2:23 pm

EA CO AS wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
I know too little of the inner workings of Affordable Care Act to answer if it is a failure or not


Yet I'm sure you're aware that in the U.S. we do not have nor believe in a socialized healthcare system. People are responsible for paying for their own care, or getting insurance (either as an employment benefit, or on the open market). In any event, that insurance available on the open market is hampered by regulations that do not permit insurance companies to compete effectively, driving up premiums and overall costs.

And again, Trump wants to peel back those regulations, allowing free competition in the marketplace to improve quality of care and lower costs.

Just as other deregulated industries have done.


Hold on a sec-YOU don't want socialized healthcare, you don't speak for all Americans. You may not have problem with people going broke paying for healthcare, or college, or whatnot, because "that's the way we've always done it". Even though we're the outlier in the world when it comes to making people go broke for such things, you don't want to change it.

Well, life is about change, EA CO AS. And what we have now doesn't work. I'm not talking about Obamacare in general, but the way we allow insurance companies to price Americans out of healthcare by paying outrageous sums for our medication. Good health should not be a commodity or a privilige. It is a human right to have access to safe, affordable health care. It shouldn't be reserved for the wealthy.

And your answer about repealing more regulation will only mean that the insurance companies and pharma's will continue to gouge the American consumer, and let them do what they damn well please.

We need to go the other way-we need MORE regulation, over pricing, over the fact we allow them to spend money on advertising products that doctors prescribe, over price-gouging. We need a socialized system, as we'll be a healtier nation if we go that route.
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6374
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 2:26 pm

QF29 wrote:
People shouldnt be forced to pay for lifesaving medical treatment, peroid.


People in every country always pay for medical treatment they receive. Period.

Either in taxes, insurance or out of pocket.

Medical treatment is never 'FREE'.

The only difference is where the person pays the money and how efficient the system is at getting the money to the healthcare providers.

In the US, the 'belief' is that a private For-Profit system is more efficient than a government system.

And they are right - the private systems are much more efficient at diverting money from actual healthcare to salaries and bonuses for employees and profits for investors than a government system.
Not all who wander are lost.
 
aerosreenivas
Posts: 179
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 6:40 pm

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 3:53 pm

News just now on CNN. The fallout of Trump's 2005 tape on women is that Paul Ryan is not going to defend Donald Trump. So another key element in the Republican establishment not going to be a supporter of Trump.

I watched the 2nd Presidential debate today. I followed the entire debate and there was one moment that caught my attention.

During the debate, Mr. Trump mentioned that if he becomes the next US President, he will appoint a special prosecutor and put Hilary Clinton in jail. This is really unprecedented in US history.

My question to all of you in this forum is that, " Is it possible for a US President to put your rival in jail even through a due process of law for even a email scandal let alone for mistakes made in foreign policies?"
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:32 pm

aerosreenivas wrote:
" Is it possible for a US President to put your rival in jail even through a due process of law for even a email scandal let alone for mistakes made in foreign policies?"

Technically, a president could order the Attorney General to bring charges against a rival, but this would likely cause the Attorney General to resign, and in the end if charges were brought, the courts would refuse to convict. And if a court did convict the "rival", a higher court would be sure to reverse the conviction.

It would be a huge blunder for a president to attempt to exact revenge against a rival.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8620
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:37 pm

aerosreenivas wrote:
My question to all of you in this forum is that, " Is it possible for a US President to put your rival in jail even through a due process of law for even a email scandal let alone for mistakes made in foreign policies?"

The thing here is that if it had been only one case where Clinton got away, it would be deemed reasonable to suspect that there's still something worth looking into. The fact that the FBI said "there was extreme carelessness but no intent proven" puts a damper on things. What Trump is saying is unprecedented: "I'll appoint someone loyal to me to not give a f*ck about due process and charge you immediately because I say so". You know where else we see that? Russia. North Korea. Zimbabwe. Myanmar (during military rule). The obsession to lock Clinton up is surreal, which is why GOP officials are silent and not encouraging the chant (though they know it's political suicide if they oppose it).
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12142
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:39 pm

rfields5421 wrote:
QF29 wrote:
People shouldnt be forced to pay for lifesaving medical treatment, peroid.


People in every country always pay for medical treatment they receive. Period.

Either in taxes, insurance or out of pocket.

Medical treatment is never 'FREE'.

The only difference is where the person pays the money and how efficient the system is at getting the money to the healthcare providers.

In the US, the 'belief' is that a private For-Profit system is more efficient than a government system.

And they are right - the private systems are much more efficient at diverting money from actual healthcare to salaries and bonuses for employees and profits for investors than a government system.


haha, indeed.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
DLFREEBIRD
Posts: 1584
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 6:07 pm

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:40 pm

i tried to watched the debate but half way through. there was so much negativity, i literally had to walk away because both candidates made me sick.

Trump came to do battle. i have no idea what anybody see's in him. i see someone who has a grandiosity view of themselves
and's doing a great job of selling himself as narcissistic president. What is shocking is that people want someone with his nature in office.

.i suppose people are voting for him out of pure desperation, they must think HRC is the anti-Christ. when in reality she's just someone with really bad judgement who tries to lie her way out of bad situations she's gotten herself in. Not a quality you want in a president either.

i hope this will be a wake up call to our nation to never let something like this happen again. we need to get involved in the early process of nominating quality candidates that know the fundamental difference between right and wrong.

enough of shady business owners and shady politicians.
 
aerosreenivas
Posts: 179
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 6:40 pm

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 6:13 pm

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

Trump came to do battle. i have no idea what anybody see's in him. i see someone who has a grandiosity view of themselves
and's doing a great job of selling himself as narcissistic president. What is shocking is that people want someone with his nature in office.

.i suppose people are voting for him out of pure desperation, they must think HRC is the anti-Christ. when in reality she's just someone with really bad judgement who tries to lie her way out of bad situations she's gotten herself in. Not a quality you want in a president either.

i hope this will be a wake up call to our nation to never let something like this happen again. we need to get involved in the early process of nominating quality candidates that know the fundamental difference between right and wrong.

enough of shady business owners and shady politicians.


Well this situation is taking place across the globe. In every democratic society, we are seeing certain communities either feeling marginalized or unemployed and job loss. Some even oppose globalization or free movement of migrants to their country. This makes them show their disappointment against the current establishment and are looking for a change.

So these reasonable anger shown by people from a country are most often hijacked by the Ultra Right Wing Nationalist Parties or Leaders that agree to these people's opinion and promise some change. That gives rise to candidates like Donald Trump, Marine Le Penn, Boris Johnson and other such leaders.

Example: the recent BREXIT is due to Boris Johnson who was totally opposed to migrants, EU and he took some extreme stands that were against the British Constitution.

Similarly, we are seeing the same thing taking place in France where Marine Le Penn who is against Muslim women wearing Burka and opposes Syrian immigrants settling in France.

That is the same case in Hungary, Germany and other European countries where the Nationalist leaders are getting more popularity among its citizens.

Now this has slowly crept into the US. Trump has used this situation to his advantage by painting negative pictures about Mexican immigrants, Muslims and other minority communities. So this has made American citizens believe that their national security is under threat due to certain communities and should send them back to their own country.

In the end, all the people should have independent thought on every situation affecting their country and should not get swayed by few self-serving individuals that spread falsehood and exaggerated fear in their mind. If people want to vote for change, then they must select that person who unifies every community and not spread hatred towards a particular community. The change maker can be from outside the political establishment and become the elected representative.

As far as, shady politicians like Hilary Clinton is concerned, she has been tried by the FBI, Congress and other law enforcement agencies. They are yet to find any evidence against her. She also has 64% rating as not a trust able candidate.

But compared to Trump, she is more dependable in the protection of minorities in America.
 
wingman
Posts: 4033
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 6:35 pm

aerosreenivas wrote:
During the debate, Mr. Trump mentioned that if he becomes the next US President, he will appoint a special prosecutor and put Hilary Clinton in jail. This is really unprecedented in US history.My question to all of you in this forum is that, " Is it possible for a US President to put your rival in jail even through a due process of law for even a email scandal let alone for mistakes made in foreign policies?"


He gets that from Vlado:

"luk Donald, in Mutherland we say fuk doo process, iz doo doo da!? You make Prezident I show you how put zis bitch in Gulag. Den you help me make nuklir expoloszin in Kiev! I meet you Caracas, you luv dose guys Donald trust me, and we make party zelebrate for Hillary jail and Kiev boom boom. I bring you so much pussy to make your hand go up skirt your..how do you say English..comb over?? It blow back Donald! Now be payshint, Snowden almost have next emails leak reddy for dat goofy ball in Ecuador Embassy London..he work for me because any emails come out from Vlado I put some plutonium injekshun up his ass. You will like my methods of being big boss DOnald, iz works best dan doo doo process..zo BORING!"
 
User avatar
PacificBeach88
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:42 pm

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 6:44 pm

Is it just me or has the Donald gained 30 or 35 lbs in the past few months? He's portly as hell now, and his suit is ill fitting too. And this 70 year old clown thinks he's qualified to rate and violate women? Ewwww.....

Image

Image
 
LMP737
Posts: 6127
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 6:56 pm

EA CO AS wrote:

Yet I'm sure you're aware that in the U.S. we do not have nor believe in a socialized healthcare system.
.


Remember that when you are signing up for Medicare.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
User avatar
PacificBeach88
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:42 pm

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:09 pm

LMP737 wrote:

Remember that when you are signing up for Medicare.


This is what always cracked me up about the "socialized medicine" haters....the US Govt ALREADY supplies approx 50% of all healthcare to individuals now. Between the VA, Tricare, Medicare, Medicaid, and employees that are on government health plans. These twats whine that "socializing" the last 50% of Americans would bring the End Times according to Revelations. It shows how uninformed and ridiculous they are.
 
LMP737
Posts: 6127
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:40 pm

I'll be honest. I haven't watched either of the debates. I've seen the high lights, or low lights as some may argue. However unless Hillary Clinton comes out and says that her first act as C n C is to launch an all out nuclear strike on Russia or China I have no intention on voting for Trump.

At this point the though of listening to him is just painful. Makes your ears want to bleed.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15796
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:47 pm

PacificBeach88 wrote:
These twats whine that "socializing" the last 50% of Americans would bring the End Times according to Revelations. It shows how uninformed and ridiculous they are.


It's hard to take you seriously when you're busy calling people names based solely on the premise that they have a different opinion than you.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
Redd
Posts: 1355
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:40 am

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 8:00 pm

Like a trashy American reality TV show. Bloody redneck theater. Such a shame that politics has stooped to such a low level. Not one of the candidates seems to give a sh*t about the country, only about putting down their opponent and pointing out their faults.
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 8:00 pm

EA CO AS wrote:
PacificBeach88 wrote:
These twats whine that "socializing" the last 50% of Americans would bring the End Times according to Revelations. It shows how uninformed and ridiculous they are.


It's hard to take you seriously when you're busy calling people names based solely on the premise that they have a different opinion than you.

He's only a half a step behind 777jet. I think Obama would describe them both as having major insecurities.
 
coolian2
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:34 pm

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 8:12 pm

EA CO AS wrote:
PacificBeach88 wrote:
These twats whine that "socializing" the last 50% of Americans would bring the End Times according to Revelations. It shows how uninformed and ridiculous they are.


It's hard to take you seriously when you're busy calling people names based solely on the premise that they have a different opinion than you.

Can I do it? Can I call you a moron?
Q300/ATR72-600/737-200/-300/-400/-700/-800/A320/767-200/-300/757-200/777-300ER/
747-200/-300/-400/ER/A340-300/A380-800/MD-83/-88/CRJ-700/-900
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11088
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 8:12 pm

Redd wrote:
Like a trashy American reality TV show. Bloody redneck theater. Such a shame that politics has stooped to such a low level. Not one of the candidates seems to give a sh*t about the country, only about putting down their opponent and pointing out their faults.

Essentially the main reason for that is the fact a candidate is much better of NOT having stated policies they will implement and action they will take as they will then have to follow through or face accusations if they do not follow through.

So it has become standard fare to first say nothing much more than "Well hell, you certainly don't want THAT person...." and see how that goes. And with two candidates that the people love to try and highlight the flaws of, this election has achieved a pinnacle of sorts of this type of electioneering.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11088
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 8:18 pm

EA CO AS wrote:
The only major industry where government-mandated suppression of competition hasn't yet been undone is in healthcare. Unshackled from those restraints, you'll see costs go down, enabling companies to still have plans - for a lot less than they are today - that cover all pre-existing conditions, no maximum limits, and so on.

Then WHY haven't the Republican members in Congress done ANYTHING to address the flaws in the ACA? I think it is because they really have abandoned their oath to their constituents and instead have done only what they pretend is best for the party and of course for themselves.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 8:22 pm

Tugger wrote:
Essentially the main reason for that is the fact a candidate is much better of NOT having stated policies they will implement and action they will take as they will then have to follow through or face accusations if they do not follow through.

I think that while running for office a more immediate concern is to leave your opponent with nothing to attack.
While a candidate sometimes needs a key issue or two, in general the less a candidate specifically says about issues the better off they are.

This is just an unfortunate reality for debate technique.
 
QANTAS077
Posts: 5197
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:08 pm

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 9:32 pm

salttee wrote:
rfields5421 wrote:
Trump isn't a lawyer, doesn't know the legal requirements to have someone arrested, much less the type of evidence necessary to win a conviction in a court, or the steps necessary to prevent such a conviction being overturned on appeal due to prosecutorial misconduct or executive influence of the process.

I don't think Trump is as misinformed as you say. This is a case where it is necessary to keep in mind the difference between (misinformed), a liar and a bullshitter. A liar distorts the truth, a bullshitter has no interest in the truth.

Trump is playing to his audience, it's all for show. He knows what they like to hear.


yeah, but that audience isn't going to win him the general election.
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15796
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 10:19 pm

coolian2 wrote:
Can I do it? Can I call you a moron?


Only if I can tell you to go fuck yourself.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15796
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 10:21 pm

Tugger wrote:
Then WHY haven't the Republican members in Congress done ANYTHING to address the flaws in the ACA?


Think of it like a car involved in a wreck that now has a bent frame; it's beyond economic repair, and you're better off just getting a new car.

Same thing with the ACA; it's so inherently full of flaws that you're better off repealing it entirely - which they've tried - and starting over.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
coolian2
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:34 pm

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 10:49 pm

EA CO AS wrote:
coolian2 wrote:
Can I do it? Can I call you a moron?


Only if I can tell you to go fuck yourself.

I believe that is only fair.

I did overstep and I do apologise for being a prick.
Q300/ATR72-600/737-200/-300/-400/-700/-800/A320/767-200/-300/757-200/777-300ER/
747-200/-300/-400/ER/A340-300/A380-800/MD-83/-88/CRJ-700/-900
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 11:05 pm

EA CO AS wrote:
Tugger wrote:
Then WHY haven't the Republican members in Congress done ANYTHING to address the flaws in the ACA?


Think of it like a car involved in a wreck that now has a bent frame; it's beyond economic repair, and you're better off just getting a new car.

Same thing with the ACA; it's so inherently full of flaws that you're better off repealing it entirely - which they've tried - and starting over.


Yes, but they haven't shown the public the new car, at least not one that enough of them want to abandon the old one. Once there's a better offer, perhaps the GOP will get some traction, but so far the only offer has been to take away the car.

Fundamentally, allowing competition across state lines isn't going to achieve much of anything. You mentioned laser surgery, orthodontic and chiropractic procedures, but they are all elective procedures. Competition doesn't work as well when you don't have a choice about whether you get the procedure, nor the time to compare your options. With the procedures above it's just a question of comparing one price tag and you can take your time doing it. I've said before on this forum to those who think for-profit healthcare is effective that they should try getting a quote, on paper or over the phone, for the price that they will pay for a particular procedure, end-to-end. Say an appendectomy, for example. I can tell you it cannot be done.

Free markets function excellently, but only when there is *clarity* about the services involved and their cost to the consumer. But there is absolutely no incentive for an insurance company to make anything clear, as they've shown time and again. Scott Adams once described insurers as a "confusopoly", and I think that description is apt.

Also, nobody has really been able to explain to me why operating across state lines would increase competition by any significant amount anyway. Except in the tiniest states, aren't there already many insurers and providers for all but the most obscure procedures? Why isn't the free market working now?
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 11:16 pm

salttee wrote:
EA CO AS wrote:
PacificBeach88 wrote:
These twats whine that "socializing" the last 50% of Americans would bring the End Times according to Revelations. It shows how uninformed and ridiculous they are.


It's hard to take you seriously when you're busy calling people names based solely on the premise that they have a different opinion than you.

He's only a half a step behind 777jet. I think Obama would describe them both as having major insecurities.


Oh the irony in you of all people saying that. Given the insults that you throw at people who don't agree with you, or who just share a different opinion, particularly in the MH370 threads and in the thread that you created on MH17 in this very sub-forum, I guess that you just admitted to "having major insecurities". The liberal types in here have been very quick to insult those who disagree with them at an increasing rate over the past few months, especially since the primaries were coming towards the end. If they are going to dish it out, they should expect it back. Whilst this is a shame because most of the people in here seem like they could be decent people, it is at least good to see people engaging passionately about politics and not just completely switching off like more and more people are doing given the pathetic state of current politics.

Now, has the '"Clinton Cash" Documentary been debunked yet? Quite a dim picture of the Clintons' that illustrates... ;)
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 11:28 pm

The elephant under the rug in this ACA debate is the AMA; the AMA paradigm keeps costs astronomical, they are even so crass as to exert their influence to limit the number of medical school slots available so that they and their sons & daughters don't have enough competition to force lower costs. Then comes the drug companies with a similar agenda. The lobbyists behind these two groups basically own Congress and the Senate.

I was a very early and fervent Obama supporter, but I never cared one way or the other about the ACA because it doesn't address the source of the problem: the AMA. I am certain that Obama knew this when he crafted the ACA. He did all he could to patch up our medical system but he knew it would have been political suicide to take on the AMA - and he wouldn't have gotten any legislation passed anyway. So he came up with legislation that provided insurance coverage for a lot of people who would otherwise have done without, and who would have continued to swamp the nation's emergency rooms without ACA. But ACA just addresses financial issues and the problem lies in the dysfunctional paradigm we have for a medical system.
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6374
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Mon Oct 10, 2016 11:53 pm

EA CO AS wrote:
Tugger wrote:
Then WHY haven't the Republican members in Congress done ANYTHING to address the flaws in the ACA?


Think of it like a car involved in a wreck that now has a bent frame; it's beyond economic repair, and you're better off just getting a new car.


The "problem" with that analogy is that Republican Party, especially the Tea Party folks in Congress do not want a new car. They want to keep you from having any car. Everyone will be better off if cars aren't available to those who cannot pay cash.

Trumps position that he will implement a new health care program is DOA.

The Republicans in Congress will never allow a replacement program for ACA, will never allow modifications to fix some of the problems.

If Trump wins and the Republicans retain control of Congress - the ACA will be repealed. But a replacement will not happen until the unhappy people send folks like Ted Cruz and Blake Farenthold home from Congress.
Not all who wander are lost.
 
User avatar
PacificBeach88
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:42 pm

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Tue Oct 11, 2016 12:06 am

EA CO AS wrote:
PacificBeach88 wrote:
These twats whine that "socializing" the last 50% of Americans would bring the End Times according to Revelations. It shows how uninformed and ridiculous they are.


It's hard to take you seriously when you're busy calling people names based solely on the premise that they have a different opinion than you.


Thank you for making my point. You can't stow your wing nut hysteria for 2 minutes to present a single, solitary, topical point, that demonstrates why Obamacare is so horrific. Instead, you feel the need to attack me, and not my facts of the US government currently providing 50% of all healthcare already. You refuse to address that, but find the time to whine, bitch, and moan, about me stating facts. Typical Republican.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 14195
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Tue Oct 11, 2016 1:35 am

EA CO AS

Think of it like a car involved in a wreck that now has a bent frame; it's beyond economic repair, and you're better off just getting a new car.

Same thing with the ACA; it's so inherently full of flaws that you're better off repealing it entirely - which they've tried - and starting over.


Seriously, do you believe that will be done by the Republicans? Let us be realistic and let us not call each other names. We on the left are well aware of the flaws of the ACA. Trump has said he will replace it with something better. The million dollar question is, better for who? We all know the Republicans are not known for improving anything for the average person. If I am incorrect, please let me know what they have done for workers, average people of which I am one. I await your reply. I am ready to learn. I am an American who believes in opportunity and an improved lifestyle for all.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 14195
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Tue Oct 11, 2016 2:28 am

salttee wrote:
The elephant under the rug in this ACA debate is the AMA; the AMA paradigm keeps costs astronomical, they are even so crass as to exert their influence to limit the number of medical school slots available so that they and their sons & daughters don't have enough competition to force lower costs. Then comes the drug companies with a similar agenda. The lobbyists behind these two groups basically own Congress and the Senate.

I was a very early and fervent Obama supporter, but I never cared one way or the other about the ACA because it doesn't address the source of the problem: the AMA. I am certain that Obama knew this when he crafted the ACA. He did all he could to patch up our medical system but he knew it would have been political suicide to take on the AMA - and he wouldn't have gotten any legislation passed anyway. So he came up with legislation that provided insurance coverage for a lot of people who would otherwise have done without, and who would have continued to swamp the nation's emergency rooms without ACA. But ACA just addresses financial issues and the problem lies in the dysfunctional paradigm we have for a medical system.


I have to agree, with your main points and it is a shame it is so true. Corrupted by money as all is these days if not always. Obama was facing a wall as Hillary Clinton did on her attempt to help the average person without medical coverage. Congress would never have passed what was passed if it was not almost fatally flawed because there was no built in way to control the medical industry who does own congress as usual.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6374
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

Re: 2nd Presidential Debate Thread

Tue Oct 11, 2016 2:33 am

zckls04 wrote:
Also, nobody has really been able to explain to me why operating across state lines would increase competition by any significant amount anyway. Except in the tiniest states, aren't there already many insurers and providers for all but the most obscure procedures? Why isn't the free market working now?


The free market isn't working because the various states set high and low insurance premium rates, some states define minimum coverage.

Once got a two week long earful on this. Was one year selected as a worker level representative when the company was deciding on bids for health insurance coverage for 17,000 people in 39 states for the next year. (The company valued the worker 'input'.) The bids were already in, the major decisions made - but I was part of a group of 12 average workers to look over the options. Found it interesting, and confusing that United Healthcare could offer a national plan for us, but workers in some states got coverage A but not B, while workers in 20 other states go coverage B but not A. And that there were some minor variations in policy rates for certain states.

So far - the most important thing about the individual state insurance departments is keeping 'rice bowl' going. And that insurance companies - auto, homeowners, health - are behind the biggest campaign contributors for state level elections.

Getting rid of state line limits on insurance coverage would lower the costs - by eliminating the millions/ billions of dollars the companies funnel into state level political campaigns. Now whether or not the consumer would see a penny of price reduction in rates is another discussion.
Not all who wander are lost.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BaconButty, cskok8, flyguy89, SOBHI51 and 43 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos