2016 Election -- Part II
Poll
 | 57 votes (47.89%) | ||
| | 33 votes (27.73%) | ||
| | 12 votes (10.08%) | ||
| | 10 votes (8.4%) | ||
| | 4 votes (3.36%) | ||
| | 3 votes (2.52%) |
119 members have voted
Quote: MaxPen
People here are quoting 538, which was clearly highlighted as Clinton friendly in numerous Wikileaks..
???
How is 538 Clinton friendly?
That's absurd
Quote: JoeshlabotnikI count fourteen chunks of BS in just a very few words in your post. Gotta hand it to you. Please tell us how you feel about the invading space aliens.
Wasn't Hillary the one who promised to release details on aliens if elected?
I have a friend who does pain management for a living. I asked him if he takes Medicaid patients. He said he feels it is his duty to do so, however not at the expense of bankrupting his practice. He said he will take one Medicaid patient a day. This results in an average wait of four months for a Medicaid patient while a regularly insured patient will wait 2 to 3 weeks.
Quote: SOOPOOToo many posts to quote...... Please call any private doctors office and tell them you are covered by Medicaid and see how long it will take for you to get an appointment if at all! Obama care has expanded Medicaid exponentially, but there is still very few private doctors that will allow you to cross their doors. Yes, the clinic at my hospital takes Medicaid!
I have a friend who does pain management for a living. I asked him if he takes Medicaid patients. He said he feels it is his duty to do so, however not at the expense of bankrupting his practice. He said he will take one Medicaid patient a day. This results in an average wait of four months for a Medicaid patient while a regularly insured patient will wait 2 to 3 weeks.
Speaking of bankruptcy, it's kind of amazing, you find studies all through the years. Most recent I found was 2014, saying basically the same thing as this from 2001.
Quote:Illness and medical bills caused half of the 1,458,000 personal bankruptcies in 2001, according to a study published by the journal Health Affairs.
The study estimates that medical bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans annually -- counting debtors and their dependents, including about 700,000 children.
Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness. However, 38 percent had lost coverage at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy.
Most of the medical bankruptcy filers were middle class; 56 percent owned a home and the same number had attended college. In many cases, illness forced breadwinners to take time off from work -- losing income and job-based health insurance precisely when families needed it most.
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html
Again, here's the recent version.
Quote:Bankruptcies resulting from unpaid medical bills will affect nearly 2 million people this year—making health care the No. 1 cause of such filings, and outpacing bankruptcies due to credit-card bills or unpaid mortgages, according to new data. And even having health insurance doesn't buffer consumers against financial hardship.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148
If government can't address this problem then what will?
I think she stayed at that one baccarat junket guys house and the Wynn extended her a bunch of credit.Quote: beachbumbabsSame thought I had. Lots of nice places around Vegas. And they had a lot of time to plan ahead.
I think she stayed at that one baccarat junket guys house and the Wynn extended her a bunch of credit.Quote: beachbumbabsSame thought I had. Lots of nice places around Vegas. And they had a lot of time to plan ahead.
Quote: rxwine
If government can't address this problem then what will?
That's pretty much the whole point! While private insurance is better than no insurance, it doesn't entirely insure against disaster. That's why we need a simple single-payer government healthcare system. No one would go bankrupt sue to medical bills then.
Quote: SOOPOOToo many posts to quote...... Please call any private doctors office and tell them you are covered by Medicaid and see how long it will take for you to get an appointment if at all! Obama care has expanded Medicaid exponentially, but there is still very few private doctors that will allow you to cross their doors. Yes, the clinic at my hospital takes Medicaid!
I have a friend who does pain management for a living. I asked him if he takes Medicaid patients. He said he feels it is his duty to do so, however not at the expense of bankrupting his practice. He said he will take one Medicaid patient a day. This results in an average wait of four months for a Medicaid patient while a regularly insured patient will wait 2 to 3 weeks.
I'm sure that varies from location to location. I've waited, on average, 1-2 weeks to see my GP and various specialists. Also, where I live, almost every doctor takes Medicaid patients.
I don't believe that hooey about seeing Medicaid patients bankrupting poor helpless doctors. While Medicaid reimbursements aren't always what doctors charge private insurance providers, they cover at the very least, the costs of providing care.
Quote: MaxPenWasn't Hillary the one who promised to release details on aliens if elected?
No. It was Trump. He said he'd build a giant force field to keep them out.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikNo. It was Trump. He said he'd build a giant force field to keep them out.
New York Times May 10,2016. She is referred to as the "E.T. Candidate" amongst UFO buffs. You accuse me of making stuff up, yet that is your main MO. Everything that I have claimed can be substantiated. Not into posting links because it's a pain with this site format.
(1) How does it differ on this site from any other forum?Quote: MaxPenNot into posting links because it's a pain with this site format.
(2) Copy & paste is really too challenging for you?
Quote: MaxPenNew York Times May 10,2016. She is referred to as the "E.T. Candidate" amongst UFO buffs. You accuse me of making stuff up, yet that is your main MO. Everything that I have claimed can be substantiated. Not into posting links because it's a pain with this site format.
Max
posting links is easy
Copy and paste
anyway
I am a huge fan of Nate Silver. He just wants to get it right
again
How is 538 Clinton friendly?
That's absurd
Where is the evidence?
If copy and paste, just 2 clicks, is way way too hard and difficult and complicated for you
Point me in the right direction. :-)
Quote: Joeshlabotnik
I don't believe that hooey about seeing Medicaid patients bankrupting poor helpless doctors. While Medicaid reimbursements aren't always what doctors charge private insurance providers, they cover at the very least, the costs of providing care.
If I was in private practice and only had Medicaid patients I would make less than zero dollars a year. If I am paid $800 by 'regular' insurance for an operation, Medicaid will pay around $100. My costs per case exceed that. Hospitals that do significant medicaid populations have to subsidize in some way the physicians who work there, or there will be no physicians that will be willing to do so. The other option is just to employ the physicians, taking away the 'risk' for uninsured or under insured patients from the doctor and shifting it to the hospital.
By the way, you are correct about state by state differences. NY just happens to be near the bottom in Medicaid reimbursements to my specialty. Some states pay just slightly less than 'regular' insurance.
Quote: MaxPen2 highest ranked polls in America have Trump in the lead.
You never responded as to which "highest ranked" polls you were referring to.
But Rasmussen, IBD, and the LA Times all have Clinton in the lead today.
Quote: ams288You never responded as to which "highest ranked" polls you were referring to.
But Rasmussen, IBD, and the LA Times all have Clinton in the lead today.
Highest ranked by Max, of course, according to the criterion of how well they say Trump is doing!
The ones that say Clinton is winning are all stinkin' liberal lies. We are enmeshed in an immense conspiracy to hide the truth and secure world domination for Hillary and only the shining beacon of truth that is Trump can lead us out of the darkness!
Gaah. I just Trumped up my breakfast.
Quote: SOOPOOIf I was in private practice and only had Medicaid patients I would make less than zero dollars a year. If I am paid $800 by 'regular' insurance for an operation, Medicaid will pay around $100. My costs per case exceed that. Hospitals that do significant medicaid populations have to subsidize in some way the physicians who work there, or there will be no physicians that will be willing to do so. The other option is just to employ the physicians, taking away the 'risk' for uninsured or under insured patients from the doctor and shifting it to the hospital.
By the way, you are correct about state by state differences. NY just happens to be near the bottom in Medicaid reimbursements to my specialty. Some states pay just slightly less than 'regular' insurance.
Well, whatever the parameters are, the problem shows why a single payer government system is the only one that will work. Medical insurance, of any type, eventually succumbs to market failure. Those who need care the most either simply can't get it, are forced to wait in long lines for everything, or in the case of private insurance, are simply denied care unless they can pay out-of-pocket.
Medical care being in such short supply and so expensive that it has to be subsidized, one way or another, before many people can afford it is a societal problem that we didn't plan for--we never thought people would be LIVING so long, dammit. I think that the social contract (however you define it) includes that if you get sick, you get taken care of. I can only imagine what people who are waiting, waiting, waiting to receive badly needed care think of the system--not just the medical care system, but our society.
The question still needs to be asked: it works in Europe; it works in Canada; why on earth wouldn't it work here? Why are Republicans so scared to death of a single-payer system? (Other than, of course, that it would help the lesser breeds to survive and eventually outvote good Christian white folks.)
Quote: MaxPenPeople are supposed to take you seriously? I really hope you will be able to cope if your girl loses.
To the Mods. How is this tolerable?
It's PG and was not directed at a specific Forum Member.
Quote: Mission146It's PG and was not directed at a specific Forum Member.
This guy insulted 49.5% of the forum according to this thread's poll. Hell, I got suspended for 3 days because I asked 1 single poster if he was Chinese.
Quote: MaxPenThis guy insulted 49.5% of the forum according to this thread's poll. Hell, I got suspended for 3 days because I asked 1 single poster if he was Chinese.
Your insult was not broad enough.
"This guy" can teach you how to do it up right! Maybe you can get to a higher % than him!
Quote: JoeshlabotnikWell, whatever the parameters are, the problem shows why a single payer government system is the only one that will work. Medical insurance, of any type, eventually succumbs to market failure. Those who need care the most either simply can't get it, are forced to wait in long lines for everything, or in the case of private insurance, are simply denied care unless they can pay out-of-pocket.
Medical care being in such short supply and so expensive that it has to be subsidized, one way or another, before many people can afford it is a societal problem that we didn't plan for--we never thought people would be LIVING so long, dammit. I think that the social contract (however you define it) includes that if you get sick, you get taken care of. I can only imagine what people who are waiting, waiting, waiting to receive badly needed care think of the system--not just the medical care system, but our society.
The question still needs to be asked: it works in Europe; it works in Canada; why on earth wouldn't it work here? Why are Republicans so scared to death of a single-payer system? (Other than, of course, that it would help the lesser breeds to survive and eventually outvote good Christian white folks.)
Don't bring Canada into this. While our income taxes pay for our health care, we benefit from (1) generally lower physician pay, driving the best into the well-paying US market, (2) negotiating prices that we pay to pharmaceuticals at the provincial levels, making it easier to negotiate, (3) lack of profit motive - all hospitals are non-profit and do not report to a shareholder. These bring about much lower costs overall (about 50% cheaper). Quality is an issue. Canada does great at emergency care, cancer treatment, and immediate care, but is terrible for long-term care and wait lists. Some communities are short doctors (though that is improving). CT Scans and MRIs take months to schedule. Knee replacements and hip-surgeries can take years, leading into long-term pain management situation and risk of deterioration. Americans with employer-paid health insurance will balk at the Canadian system because it is a worse level of care even though it is bankrupting you. Even in Canada, there are different streams of care. You get bumped to the front-of-the-line for workplace injuries for example.
Single-payer won't work because it will bankrupt the for-profit hospitals, pharmaceuticals and insurance companies, all of which, are in the politician's back pockets. It would be a bold move that could only be achieved without the health care companies.
If there is indeed ONE thing that would fix America's economy, it might be that switch to single-payer that does it, with the removal or limitation of the for-profit industry (hospitals, insurance companies, pharmaceuticals).
Quote: RonCYour insult was not broad enough.
"This guy" can teach you how to do it up right! Maybe you can get to a higher % than him!
As with many of your posts, you're skating along the edge of personal insult/personal attack yourself.
The IDB (Investor's Daily) poll has been the most accurate in the past 4 elections as it uses a unique model. The LA times poll works the same way but skews right. Rasmussen has always skewed right. IBD has the election in a tie (Clinton +1, within the margin of error).
One can argue that telephone polls are more skewed than ever as people move away from home-phone technology. Still, there have been over 3,000 polls conducted using a variety of different methods and it is extremely unlikely that the average is far away from actual results.
The other issue of course is actually voting. Answering a phone or responding to an online poll is a different than making a trip to the polls. That's where the variance comes in, and I think it is also where Dems will have a distinct advantage in getting people to the voting booths. Their boots on the ground will help them win Ohio (even though recent polls have it at a dead heat) while voting restrictions will give Trump the win in NC (despite it being Blue). Trump is campaigning heaving in FL, hopefully turning it red.
The Obamacare story out today (which actually won't affect many, since the government subsidizes) won't help Clinton. Polls out after the debate did not hurt Trump, and I consider the ABC +12 vote an outlier.
Quote: boymimbo
The other issue of course is actually voting. Answering a phone or responding to an online poll is a different than making a trip to the polls. That's where the variance comes in, and I think it is also where Dems will have a distinct advantage in getting people to the voting booths.
All the Democrats need to do is to get nationwide networks to show "Red Dawn" or "Beavis and Butthead" over and over and no Trumpers will show up at the polls. I had initially thought that WWF wrestling would keep them home, but that's usually on Monday night.
I agree that answering a phone poll isn't the same thing as actually going to the polling place and standing in line. It's also not nearly as much fun as going to a Trump hate rally and screaming. That's why I think that Trump's base of base people will evaporate on Election Day.
Quote: Tanko"As far as single payer, it works in Canada. It works incredibly well in Scotland."
Trump
Trump's not wrong about everything. I don't want to try to define "incredibly well," but in the U.S., the healthcare system didn't work at all before Obamacare--when some 25% of the population can't get health insurance, the system is broken. The present system works badly because health insurance (and health care in general) should never be in the hands of private companies, unless you want to make SURE that the poor rather than the rich get sick and die (which seems to be the Republican aim).
I have yet to see a cogent argument why health care should be in the hands of for-profit companies. Obviously, a private company will strive to insure ONLY those who don't need medical insurance--the young and healthy. I think that even conservatives, as dim as they are, should be able to see how that can't work.
If you say someone is not a nice person for attacking 50% of this forum then you get threatened to be suspended. However if you can take a person and put them in a certain group and then say everyone in that group is an idiot then that is OK.
Then again it may just be if the moderators agree with your view point you can say what you want.
I can't even imagine how you would even begin. ObamaCare is a start, but it did nothing to reduce costs.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikI have yet to see a cogent argument why health care should be in the hands of for-profit companies. Obviously, a private company will strive to insure ONLY those who don't need medical insurance--the young and healthy. I think that even conservatives, as dim as they are, should be able to see how that can't work.
A private company will insure anyone provided that it's a good risk.
Quote: ck1313I think i got this now.
If you say someone is not a nice person for attacking 50% of this forum then you get threatened to be suspended. However if you can take a person and put them in a certain group and then say everyone in that group is an idiot then that is OK.
Then again it may just be if the moderators agree with your view point you can say what you want.
Nonsense.
Quote: boymimboA private company will insure anyone provided that it's a good risk.
That's the problem. That's PRECISELY the problem. Some people are worse risks than others. Ideally, a private company would only want to insure people who NEVER get sick. Failing that, they only want to insure people who are likely to pay in more than they will cost. This necessarily excludes a large segment of the population.
The necessity to make a profit means that private insurance can't possibly cover the whole population effectively. Remove the profit motive and the costs of insurance would go down. That could only be done be de-privatizing health care. There's not any reason why this couldn't work using the existing facilities and mechanisms. The government simply pays the doctors and hospitals. The costs are absorbed by society at large. And yes, that means that the young and healthy subsidize the elderly and sick.
Quote: beachbumbabsQuote: ck1313I think i got this now.
If you say someone is not a nice person for attacking 50% of this forum then you get threatened to be suspended. However if you can take a person and put them in a certain group and then say everyone in that group is an idiot then that is OK.
Then again it may just be if the moderators agree with your view point you can say what you want.
Nonsense.
QFT. This........this can either turn really fun or really not fun. :)
Quote: rxwineIf the pharmaceutical company practices are any indication of what private companies do to reduce costs -- example the price gouging on epipens -- hey, we lose.
The CEO of Mylan is the daughter of (D) Senator Joe Manchin. As well Mylan is a donor to the Clinton Foundation. Yet, you keep falling for the meaningless words while paying at least 30% more for healthcare vs. 3 years ago.
Quote: MaxPenWho is responsible for record turnouts at early voting?
Uh...the people who showed up to vote?
Quote: MaxPenThe CEO of Mylan is the daughter of (D) Senator Joe Manchin. As well Mylan is a donor to the Clinton Foundation. Yet, you keep falling for the meaningless words while paying at least 30% more for healthcare vs. 3 years ago.
Have you looked at charts of healthcare costs over the years?
Can you look at the charts on a page such as this one
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2016/05/24/annual-healthcare-cost-for-family-of-four-now-at-25826/#47a395475226
And using only information on the chart show me when the ACA went into effect?
Can you see all of the increases for each year vs 3 years prior to that year?
Quote: MaxPenwhile paying at least 30% more for healthcare vs. 3 years ago.
You'd be paying that much more even without Obamacare. #fail
Quote: rsactuaryYou'd be paying that much more even without Obamacare. #fail
Notice they only take employee portion back to 2010. Not to mention they completely eliminate any data regarding deductible increases. There are many paying for Obamacare who can't afford to use it due to the ever increasing deductibles. Less for more is the motto of Obamacare. If you can't see it, no one can help you. That's what happens when you create mini monopolies with your friends and stifle competition. #in denial
#HRC (Hillary Receiving Cash)
Quote: MaxPenOn the bright side, Trump is not even president yet but he is already creating jobs. HRC is funneling 1500 and an iPhone to people so they can protest his rallies.
How many hours a day do you spend just making up nonsense?
On the other hand, the *worst* average for the last three elections of the 11 polls in 2012 was 4.9 points, and 5.3 points in 2008. So, with most polls showing Clinton with a 5-point lead or better, the polls would have to be more inaccurate than they've been in the last 12 years for a Trump win.
Finally, if we put lots of stock in IBD because of their average over the last three cycles, then remember that Pew's average was just as good, and Pew reports +7 for Clinton.
In short, Clinton is the clear favorite, but Trump does have a small chance (14.3%, according to FiveThirtyEight). It's small, but not insignificant.
http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/once-again-critics-of-the-ibdtipp-poll-get-their-facts-wrong/
Quote: JoeshlabotnikHow many hours a day do you spend just making up nonsense?
Is this something YOU really want people to look at? That'd be like Hillary Clinton asking Donald Trump how many e-mails he's deleted.....
Could I say, anyone that wants that stupid, ugly, criminal Hillary Clinton to win over Trump is themselves a stupid Idiot?Quote: beachbumbabsNonsense.
Quote: AxelWolfCould I say, anyone that wants that stupid, ugly, criminal Hillary Clinton to win over Trump is themselves a stupid Idiot?
Speaking of stupid idiots, look at the old white woman at a Trump rally yesterday holding a "Blacks for Trump" sign:
Maybe her last name is Blacks?
Also, note the man behind her wearing the lab coat and stethoscope. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I'm pretty sure he's not actually a doctor.
I'm not going to diss Trumpers. They have their reasons to vote for Trump. We can reasonably discuss why voting for Trump is a bad idea, and there are plenty of those. But there are valid reasons voting for Clinton doesn't make sense either. 40%+ of the voting population is going to vote for him.
People recognize Trump's weakness but their hatred for Washington and what it has become (a city run by money and lobbyists) and Hillary's approval and complicity/duplicity in working within this system makes people overlook Trump's obvious flaws. When I ask real people (actual people voting for Trump who are reasonable people who I work with) this is the explanation usually given.
Trump is a seriously flawed alternative. He fails, absolutely, on foreign relations, the economy, immigration, and trade (in my opinion). But voting for Clinton will just punt the problem in Washington by 8 more years and represents more of the same dysfunction, the same lobbyist control. Obama promised hope and change. He didn't achieve it. Gitmo is still open. ObamaCare is a mess. The GOP blocks everything that the Democrats want and the Democrats block everything that the GOP want. Gun control is a great example of failed politics where 88% of the population wants some form of control. ObamaCare and its failure is another great example.
But Trump represents something different. And people will gravitate to that and use their mental gymnastics to get past his flaws.
Quote: boymimboWell she is standing next to a black man.
I once stood next to a black man. It did not turn me into a black man.
Quote: ams288I once stood next to a black man. It did not turn me into a black man.
You should see the BLM rallies/protests in Minneapolis. Like 50% to 2/3 of the crowd is white. Idk, just looks funny.
Rachel Dolez-don't care what her last name is (the former white NAACP chapter leader) believes that hanging out w black people did in fact make her black, and Bruce Jenner thinks dressing up means he doesn't have a wiener. Idk, who am I to judge?
Quote: mcallister3200You should see the BLM rallies/protests in Minneapolis. Like 50% to 2/3 of the crowd is white. Idk, just looks funny.
Rachel Dolez-don't care what her last name is (the former white NAACP chapter leader) believes that hanging out w black people did in fact make her black, and Bruce Jenner thinks dressing up means he doesn't have a wiener. Idk, who am I to judge?
This is the by far the Trumpiest of any posts we will get to read here today.
Quote: ams288This is the by far the Trumpiest of any posts we will get to read here today.
Glad to humor you. Btw, I hate trump. And Hill. I suppose if I must vote for prez this year I'll throw it away on that fake hippie Jill Stein since unfortunately there's a fake libertarian on the ballot too. Bern was never anything but controlled opposition.
This "election" is such a joke, and it's on all of us. We're about to have 24 out of 32 years with either a Bush or Clinton as president. That's a democracy?
Quote: RSIs this something YOU really want people to look at? That'd be like Hillary Clinton asking Donald Trump how many e-mails he's deleted.....
If you equate the things Max says with the things I say, well, then...one would have to speculate on the reasons for that ridiculously skewed viewpoint. Partisanship, maybe?
