2016 Election -- Part II

" How high of quality of care does the VA give? "

Those are just vets. We are talking about citizens. Surely results will be different.

Quote: AZDuffman

You think a single-payer system does not take money out of the system along the way? You think because the profit motive is not there that there is still a motive to operate efficiently?

Who operates more efficient, USPS or Fedex? (No offense, Face)

How high of quality of care does the VA give?


Profit is a good thing. It makes an operation try to be more efficient. Why do you want no choice?

Depends on your value matrix,.but I would say, piece for piece, dollar for dollar, USPS is more efficient and gives better value. But that's not what FedEx delivers; they charge a premium for special handling and guaranteed delivery by a deadline.

Post office takes in 227.1m dollars a day, to process 509 million pieces of mail, for an average cost of 0.4461 dollars per piece. 206 million of those pieces are First Class, which means they fly unless they're local, same as Fedex. Every air carrier and many air taxis only fly once the mail is on board,.because that's how they make their real money, not on moving people. FedEx prices, however, start at 19.95 and go up from there. But a USPS stamp is only 47 cents, down from 49 earlier this year. Can't beat it with a stick.

You need to look for a better example.

But don't look to medicare. It's by far the cheapest and most cost-effective health care system in the country, maybe in the world, with only 2% administrative costs and a huge base of patients with which to negotiate the best rates of care in the country. AND no stockholders or owners to pay or placate.

Quote: beachbumbabs

But don't look to medicare. It's by far the cheapest and most cost-effective health care system in the country, maybe in the world, with only 2% administrative costs and a huge base of patients with which to negotiate the best rates of care in the country. AND no stockholders or owners to pay or placate.

And Medicare gives such good coverage that no senior buys extra coverage because it meets their needs. I mean, I never see ads for any medigap policies on TV.

Seriously, why is having shareholders who make a profit such a bad thing?

Quote: AZDuffman

And Medicare gives such good coverage that no senior buys extra coverage because it meets their needs. I mean, I never see ads for any medigap policies on TV.

Seriously, why is having shareholders who make a profit such a bad thing?

Because IMO, Healthcare needs to be as affordable as possible, as a basic public service, with the money focused on paying for the service itself. Every overpaid administrator, every dividend, the extra cost of running a for - profit enterprise, takes away money from health care providers and those who pay into the system.

Quote: beachbumbabs

The laughable part is that you (Trump voters) elected a guy with a demonstrated net zero business ethics, moral code, or honor, and you expect that he'll be on "your" side when the hard decisions are made. Talk about Hopey Changey nonsense. The guy is a scorpion and has proved it thousands of times in his career. Good luck with that ride across the river, Kermit, and thanks for dragging the rest of us down with you.

Funny thing about this post is when you replace "Trump" with either Obama or Clinton, it is faculty true, when you use "Trump," it may end up true, but at least there is a chance for a favorable outcome, since he hasn't yet been given a chance to f it up.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Depends on your value matrix,.but I would say, piece for piece, dollar for dollar, USPS is more efficient and gives better value. But that's not what FedEx delivers; they charge a premium for special handling and guaranteed delivery by a deadline.

Post office takes in 227.1m dollars a day, to process 509 million pieces of mail, for an average cost of 0.4461 dollars per piece. 206 million of those pieces are First Class, which means they fly unless they're local, same as Fedex. Every air carrier and many air taxis only fly once the mail is on board,.because that's how they make their real money, not on moving people. FedEx prices, however, start at 19.95 and go up from there. But a USPS stamp is only 47 cents, down from 49 earlier this year. Can't beat it with a stick.

You need to look for a better example.

But don't look to medicare. It's by far the cheapest and most cost-effective health care system in the country, maybe in the world, with only 2% administrative costs and a huge base of patients with which to negotiate the best rates of care in the country. AND no stockholders or owners to pay or placate.

You seem to know usps math pretty well.

How much does usps lose every year?

But I'm sure some single payer funded by .gov will not cost tax payers anything. Lololololol

I don't remember the last time I sent something through the mail. Perhaps when I was a kid and my parents forced me to hand-write thank-you letters to family members after Christmas was the last time I used USPS. Since then, I've always used FedEx.



Actually, I take that back. Occasionally I've had to use USPS (sending) because the receiver wouldn't accept anything else like FedEx......which would mean I'd go to the FedEx store and send whatever it is through FedEx's USPS system or however they do that.

Articles like below, seem to mostly point out, that all healthcare systems suffer in some ways. Although some are clearly worse, none are totally great - cost, quality of care, availability, there always seems to be one or more problems.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/09/which-country-has-worlds-best-healthcare-system-this-is-the-nhs

If you like one that costs a lot, the US had clearly become king in that respect.

USPS is efficient enough they cut their main menu item almost five percent. I don't recall FedEX doing that.
I send hundreds of priority packages a year. I almost always use the Post Office. FedEX, throughout offers a service where they deliver your package to your local post office, which then takes it to the final address. Great, cheap service but you have to take it to a FedEX to start the process. USPS picks up with a phone call. Both are very efficient, but dollar for dollar, I give it to the Post Office.

Image search "health care costs per capita" and you will find dozens of more or less identical charts.

These include taxes and all that. They don't include the cost of bankruptcies and other financial strains caused by poor coverage, nor the additional costs caused by those things.

4th Day in a row of anti-Trump protests. "Not My President" is slogan. More coming. Trump opponents strategizing to block his program.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/11/11/anti-trump-protesters-pour-into-streets-third-day/93668008/

Quote: beachbumbabs

Because IMO, Healthcare needs to be as affordable as possible, as a basic public service, with the money focused on paying for the service itself. Every overpaid administrator, every dividend, the extra cost of running a for - profit enterprise, takes away money from health care providers and those who pay into the system.

Your statement assumes that there are no administrators or other "extra costs" in a public system. Why don't you just come out and be honest and say that you are against profit and prefer a socialist system.

If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it is "free!" Costs or wait times will go up, but given how government runs things probably both will.

Quote: lilredrooster

4th Day in a row of anti-Trump protests. "Not My President" is slogan. More coming. Trump opponents strategizing to block his program.

Liberals not getting their own way. Give a trophy to everyone and now we see what you get.

Somehow people on the left blame Trump for all this.

Quote: AZDuffman

Your statement assumes that there are no administrators or other "extra costs" in a public system. Why don't you just come out and be honest and say that you are against profit and prefer a socialist system.

If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it is "free!" Costs or wait times will go up, but given how government runs things probably both will.

You don't need to speculate on what such a system would be like. That's what they have in Canada. They have some complaints about it but it's not a disaster or it would have been changed. They've had it for a long time. Among the free world there is no pure socialist system or pure capitalist system. The two systems are mixed together. It's the relative balance that causes the political uproar. The Chinese still call themselves Communist but big business and profit making and getting rich or becoming middle class is the dominant concern there. If they're Communists it is a derivation of Communism that would be completely unrecognizable to the original purists. They would spit on it. If Mao was in power he would start another purge. In France the Socialist Party is a huge political force. But there is tons of business and free enterprise in France with people getting rich. Their idea of socialism would be laughable to the originators of the idea. The words Socialism and Capitalism don't really mean much anymore.

Quote: lilredrooster

You don't need to speculate on what such a system would be like. That's what they have in Canada.

And anything I hear about the Canadian system is almost the same. Fine for small stuff. Long waits, your dog can get a MRI faster than you can. And if you get really sick you are SOOL.

Quote: MathExtremist

Sarcasm aside, what are they? And if they involve multiple for-profit corporations taking money out of the system along the way, why are they more efficient in providing healthcare than a single-payer system?

To put it another way, please refute this:
http://www.pnhp.org/

Your and their erroneous assumption is that government admisitration of the National Health Program would cost less than a profit driven adminitration of the plan of the current system while providing quality health care.

Based on where I see US Government currently involved in health care as a single payer (Medicare & The VA), one is going bankrupt and the other has become a policy issue on both sides of the aisle due to the quality of the care.

As far as other ideas, you could look at a Public Utility model. You could also look at forcing everyone to pick their private health coverage for life at age 18, when people are mostly healthy and allowing health care providers to really cover individuals for their lifetimes and have a motive to invest in their health because they'll make more money if their pool of individuals are as healthy as possible. They could even offer incentive rewards to individuals that take certain steps to improve their health...have you looked at what companies like Fitbit/United Health are doing by incentivizing peoole to get out and move/walk.

So there are other thoughts out there...and yes let's bring up the Canadian System, because like Medicare and the VA, Canadians exhibit their unhappiness with that system everytime they come to the US to get health services. How many US Citizens are crossing our Northern Border to get access to the Canadian Healthcare?

So instead of focusing on ideas/models that clearly aren't working in their current form on either side of the US/Canadian border, you should spend time focusing on a for profit model that solves the problem of coverage for all, portability and the invisible hand that is profit that motivates any organization to not waste money and run efficiently.

Gee It works in Canada. Sort of

http://windsorstar.com/opinion/editorials/stars-view-province-must-fulfill-its-promises

The problem with a for profit model is older people. They generally require many more medical services well before they've reached the age when they qualify for Medicare and maybe the people that like the for profit model want to do away with that too. The for profit model would require that either you charge huge premiums for older people, which most could not pay, or you have younger people subsidize the older people by paying more than they otherwise would. If you try to construct a for profit model with younger people subsidizing older people that is not true capitalism, so what's the point, and is not all that different from what the government is trying to do. Or, you could just let older people wallow in their disease and die which is what is done in many third world countries. Maybe the insurance companies would be willing to spring for morphine. But I doubt it. Or you could change some laws and let private industry compete for the euthanasia dollar. I'm sure there would be plenty of profit in it for them there.

The protesters say Trump is an awful person who hate Mexicans, women, Muslims and gays. Okay, we've heard it! Why don't the reporters on the scene ask the women protestors if they've ever made derogatory statements about men. Or ask the male demonstrators if they've ever made derogatory statements about women. Ask the protestors if it's being racist to want to keep illegals from crossing our southern border. Is it racist to not feel obliged to pay for a child's education that is in this country illegally. Is it racist to want to keep Islamic terrorists from entering this country?

The news media needs to do more than just show the same thing over and over. They need to be more responsible and fairly report the other side of the story.

Quote: lilredrooster

4th Day in a row of anti-Trump protests. "Not My President" is slogan. More coming. Trump opponents strategizing to block his program.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/11/11/anti-trump-protesters-pour-into-streets-third-day/93668008/

Not My President
I've never had any sympathy for this slogan. I was a strong Never Trump voter. Back when conservative democrats dominated the South there was a term in Texas and I'm sure elsewhere. A "yellow dog Democrat" was someone who would vote for a yellow dog if it was the only democrat choice. Well I would have voted for that yellow dog if it was the only way to prevent Trump from getting elected. But now the election is over and soon Trump will be my president and the president of those protesters too. I will reserve my support, criticism and protest if necessary to respond to what he actually does.

Quote: lilredrooster

The problem with a for profit model is older people.

Try again, that isn't even the problem with Obamacare or the previous system. The problem is getting healthy people to buy health insurance before they get unhealthy & having people lose coverage simply because they lose their jobs or become sick.

And stop making stuff up, anyone calling for the end of Medicare would get crushed in any election...it is definitely a system that needs to be fixed as well and probabaly could be as part of a new private healthcare system.

That sytem would force 18 year olds to buy health insurance while they are healthy at the statistical average cost spread across their adult live times evenly. You don't pay less when you are young and you don't pay more when you are older...if the average monthly cost of healthcare for your entire live is $400/month, you start paying into to your lifetime insurance pool at 18 at $400/month.

What that statistical cost of insurance would be is where you can have some government oversight. Similarly to how utility rates are determined by the PUC.

Private insurer's would be motivated to keep their pools of people healthy as it is easier to prevent disease than treat it. They are only going to get so much in premiums based on the statistical lifetime cost of healthcare as determined/negotiated with PUC type oversight of every private insurer...people are going to be able to switch between private insurer's based on transferring their annual payments to that group, similar to what can be done with Medicare Benefits today.

Insurer's could incentivize their member's to be healthier thru lifestyle changes like Progressive Car Insurance does when they plug that driver monitor device into your car. Perhaps rebates could be given to thise that work hard to stay healthy...anyone can dcide to start walking 10,000 steps a day if they want to...doesn't cost you a dime but long term has a huge impact on your ability to minimize chronic diseases.

This type of system could work...or we could just throw up our hands and say Canada/The VA & Medicare are the gold standard...but I won't vote for that & I don't understand why anyone that leans left would either.

I am done here on this topic...the right controls the White House, the Senate & the House...discussion about National Health Care is a waste of time as it will never pass in the next 4 years but Obamacare will be dramatically changed. Will be interesting to see what changes are proposed, bet they look a lot more like what I suggest than the ideas in some pamphlet from a fringe group of Physicians for a National Health Plan...good luck with that!

Quote: Paradigm

Try again, that isn't even the problem with Obamacare or the previous system. The problem is getting healthy people to buy health insurance before they get unhealthy & having people lose coverage simply because they lose their jobs or become sick.

The real problem is "insurance" and "care" are confused. If we had a system of "insurance" then it would kick in when you went to the hospital or had some other major event. If we say set a deductible of $5,000-10,000 that you could fund with a HSA and then no claims until the big stuff then costs would stop climbing.

But it does not work that way, so you pay hundreds a month to have small stuff covered.

Quote: Paradigm

Your and their erroneous assumption is that government admisitration of the National Health Program would cost less than a profit driven adminitration of the plan of the current system while providing quality health care.

Based on where I see US Government currently involved in health care as a single payer (Medicare & The VA), one is going bankrupt and the other has become a policy issue on both sides of the aisle due to the quality of the care.

As far as other ideas, you could look at a Public Utility model. You could also look at forcing everyone to pick their private health coverage for life at age 18, when people are mostly healthy and allowing health care providers to really cover individuals for their lifetimes and have a motive to invest in their health because they'll make more money if their pool of individuals are as healthy as possible. They could even offer incentive rewards to individuals that take certain steps to improve their health...have you looked at what companies like Fitbit/United Health are doing by incentivizing peoole to get out and move/walk.

So there are other thoughts out there...and yes let's bring up the Canadian System, because like Medicare and the VA, Canadians exhibit their unhappiness with that system everytime they come to the US to get health services. How many US Citizens are crossing our Northern Border to get access to the Canadian Healthcare?

So instead of focusing on ideas/models that clearly aren't working in their current form on either side of the US/Canadian border, you should spend time focusing on a for profit model that solves the problem of coverage for all, portability and the invisible hand that is profit that motivates any organization to not waste money and run efficiently.

I disagree that a for-profit model is necessarily the ideal model to handle any organizational goal. It's a matter of philosophy: the goal of a for-profit corporation is to maximize shareholder value. When the shareholders and the consumers are not coextensive, as they would not be in the case of a for-profit healthcare system's shareholders vs. healthcare consumers, the invisible hand puts its fingers on the scale in favor of the shareholders at the expense of the consumers.

In the free-market economist's viewpoint, that's okay. It invariably leaves consumers falling through the cracks, but the overall corporation is more efficient because it's allowed to ignore those consumers.

But that's precisely the problem. The problem with the pre-ACA insurance system in this country is that insurers were free to ignore certain consumers. My wife, for example, could not get underwritten on an individual plan due to pregnancy complications over a decade ago. Some actuary somewhere said "too much risk" and then "denied." Except as a solo entrepreneur, I don't have group health benefits through a larger employer. Have you ever been denied health insurance? If not, respectfully, you don't understand what that feels like. It's not like being denied a dinner comp at a casino.

Now, with the ACA, there is a regulation in place that insurers cannot deny consumers for risk. All insurers are required to insure everyone who applies. Obamacare requires a tax/mandate to cover that, but even so, we've seen several major insurers pull out of markets because the costs (for them) are too high. They get to decide whether it's still a good business to be in, and many of them have said it's not because shareholder value can be maximized another way.

And that leaves consumers out in the cold. If you start with the premise that healthcare is a public good and delivery thereof should not be up to the whims of a profit-motivated set of shareholders, you arrive at a very different set of operational constraints. Goal number one is not to maximize shareholder value, it's to maximize public health. In my mind, maximizing public health has a far greater positive benefit to the economy overall than maximizing the shareholder value of the health insurance industry.

And sure, let's talk about Canada for a moment. Of course it's easy to cherry-pick situations where someone in Canada is willing to pay more for services in the United States, and the reason they're able to is because certain doctors in the U.S. have chosen to practice here because they can make more money. It all comes down to money. But money is not a reasonable proxy for social good -- or, to put it another way "money can't buy happiness." Maximizing profits is not a societal benefit. Maximizing GDP is not the end goal of society. It may be an indicator, but it has lately been an exceptionally poor one. GDP is higher now than it ever has been, yet over 60M people just voted for a president who ran on a platform of destroying the government -- in many cases because they didn't participate in that GDP growth, their bosses did.

Bottom line, consumers as a group don't give a crap about GDP growth. They care about whether their basic needs are being met. And lately, they haven't been. Arguing that the free-market system is the magic bullet solution to all their problems, when that same free-market system is what caused them to suffer those problems in the first place, seems facially ridiculous. Can you explain why it's not? It's all well and good to point to total GDP growth, and the success of solo entrepreneurs like me or Mike, as signs that capitalism is working. For some people it is. For capitalists it is. But for workers it's not. You can't avoid the fact that capitalism has so eroded the working and middle class fortunes that we collectively just elected an Internet troll as president (h/t Dave Chappelle). Are you still so willing to stand by capitalism in view of the empirical evidence that it has gotten us to precisely the situation we're in? What's more important, money or people?

If a society has the resources and means to provide certain basic needs to all its citizens, and chooses not to, is it morally just?

Quote: Paradigm

This type of system could work...or we could just throw up our hands and say Canada/The VA & Medicare are the gold standard...but I won't vote for that & I don't understand why anyone that leans left would either.

I am not sure how many times it's been suggested that the VA be privatized, but there has always been a general negative response to that despite whatever bellyaching Vets do about the VA.

Would it at least get noticed if there was an overwhelming desire? Sure. It might even get done if they really wanted it.

And these are people who are not generally known to fight for socialism otherwise.

Question for those who favor the for profit model. A person is driven to a hospital by ambulance needing critical care. A relative is with him and informs the intake people that he has no insurance. So what are you going to do with this person?

Quote: MathExtremist

When the shareholders and the consumers are not coextensive, as they would not be in the case of a for-profit healthcare system's shareholders vs. healthcare consumers, the invisible hand puts its fingers on the scale in favor of the shareholders at the expense of the consumers.

In single-payer governmental systems, no "shareholders" are at hand to strive for efficient care.

Quote:

My wife, for example, could not get underwritten on an individual plan due to pregnancy complications over a decade ago. Some actuary somewhere said "too much risk" and then "denied."

People in Medicare have already seen CMS control of benefits.

Quote:

What's more important, money or people?

It is not an either-or choice. They are interdependent, as it is far from realistic to propound fancy-sounding far-reaching promises that can never realistically be fulfilled like Gruber and Emanuel's so-called Affordable Care Act and Sanders' free college tuition for all. No wonder why all those youngsters are so disappointed and angry that they have to harm everyday people and installations.

These protesters are nothing more than paid antagonists joined by useful idiots. Obama's legacy is crumbling before his eyes. Jimmy Carter is probably smiling as he won't be remembered as the worst ever anymore after this.

The word Socialism scares a lot of people. Bernie Sanders was never going to win proclaiming himself as a Socialist. The hope for rapid radical change is not realistic. Too many people are rooted in the past. For change to be acceptable it has to be gradual. Again, the word Socialism doesn't mean much anymore. All of the powers that be in the western hemisphere have some socialistic and some capitalistic aspects. It's just a word and it needs to be removed from the discussion. It's not at all helpful.




"The past is not dead. It's not even past." William Faulkner

Quote: MaxPen

. Jimmy Carter is probably smiling as he won't be remembered as the worst ever anymore after this.

Lost your faith in Trump already? How's the popular vote going? Most people didn't vote for Trump. Maybe there's hope for the majority vote.

Quote: SanchoPanza

In single-payer governmental systems, no "shareholders" are at hand to strive for efficient care.

That doesn't matter. We shouldn't focus on capital efficiency first and foremost when providing public goods. It is more important that they are provided at all.

Do you favor privatizing the military to for-profit mercenary guilds? If not, why is that different than healthcare?

Quote: lilredrooster

Question for those who favor the for profit model. A person is driven to a hospital by ambulance needing critical care. A relative is with him and informs the intake people that he has no insurance. So what are you going to do with this person?

I took care of 3 such people this beautiful Sunday morning. Just as I have done under President Clinton and President Bush and President Obama I put them to sleep so that the surgeon could fix them up. This won't change with the repeal of the ACA or the expansion of the ACA or the modification of the ACA. The patients will be rendered care. The only thing that changes is how the hospital gets reimbursed for providing this care.

Quote: MathExtremist

Do you favor privatizing the military to for-profit mercenary guilds? If not, why is that different than healthcare?

Well, one is a constitutional part of government and the other is prohibited to the federal government by the same constitution.

Quote: SOOPOO

I took care of 3 such people this beautiful Sunday morning. Just as I have done under President Clinton and President Bush and President Obama I put them to sleep so that the surgeon could fix them up. This won't change with the repeal of the ACA or the expansion of the ACA or the modification of the ACA. The patients will be rendered care. The only thing that changes is how the hospital gets reimbursed for providing this care.

Okay, thank you for your answer. So, since he has no insurance, no insurance company will pay. And since you favor a for profit model I would think that means that the government will not pay. So who will pay the hospital for providing his care assuming that he's indigent and cannot pay himself?

Quote: AZDuffman

Well, one is a constitutional part of government and the other is prohibited to the federal government by the same constitution.

Non-responsive. The constitution can (and has) been changed. The question is whether you see a moral difference between for-profit provision of one public good (healthcare) vs. another public good (defense). Do you favor privatization of the military?

You could make it easier and ask about privatizing the federal highway system and start turning a profit.

Quote: MathExtremist

Non-responsive. The constitution can (and has) been changed. The question is whether you see a moral difference between for-profit provision of one public good (healthcare) vs. another public good (defense). Do you favor privatization of the military?

The military is for the collective good. You and I both benefit from military protection and one cannot really purchase military protection independent of the rest. OTOH, healthcare is an individual purchase, like groceries or a car. So same as there is no reason to have the government run the grocery stores, no reason to run health care.

Put another way, healthcare is not public so it is not a "public good."

Quote: AZDuffman

The military is for the collective good. You and I both benefit from military protection and one cannot really purchase military protection independent of the rest. OTOH, healthcare is an individual purchase, like groceries or a car. So same as there is no reason to have the government run the grocery stores, no reason to run health care.

Put another way, healthcare is not public so it is not a "public good."

Do you believe that people who cannot pay for medical care should not receive it? Right now, your tax dollars are paying for every ER visit taken by a sick or injured person who is unable to pay.

As a society, should we stop this practice?

Quote: MathExtremist

Do you believe that people who cannot pay for medical care should not receive it? Right now, your tax dollars are paying for every ER visit taken by a sick or injured person who is unable to pay.

As a society, should we stop this practice?

I have heard this ER nonsense for years. I also hear that people are "dying at the ER Door" because they are not admitted. Which is it?

Most health care is NOT ER care. If we got serious about illegal immigration we would stop much of this problem of uninsured showing up at the ER. Yet instead of such a logical solution we are told we need socialism. No thanks.

Isn't that what retroactive abortions are for?

Quote: MathExtremist

Non-responsive. The constitution can (and has) been changed.

Do you even hear how ridiculous you sound...you are now suggesting a Constitutional Amendment to change healthcare. Trust me, you don't even have enough votes left of center to accomplish this.

Non-responsive...you haven't shown how your vision of National Healthcare would be different from a soon to be bankrupt Medicare System, The tremendous VA system delivering crappy healthcare to our best Americans or the Canadian System who's citizens cross the borders for the good docs and no lines.

Why stop with a Healthcare constitutional Amendment...guns really provide no public good in the hands of the people, let's repeal the 2nd Amendment as well.

Wall Street and its allocation of capital under the free market system does not serve the public good...let's change the Constitution to forbid the raising of public capital to fund enterprises.

Or, you could just move...seriously, ME, just stop already...the extreme left and these views of National Healthcare, irrational gun control, & government regulation lost the WH, failed to gain a majority in the Senate and are still way behind in the House. Why...because even poor dumb uneducated America actually realized all this smart elite fiscal policy under the Dems leadership hasn't changed their lives and doesn't feel like the America their parents/grandparents fought to save in WW II.

You lost...move on. Like the extreme right needs to move on from the Pro-Life and anti gay marriage social stance...they too are losers and will never be overturned...they don't have enough votes right of center to do it...too many fiscally conservative, socially liberal Republicans out there despite BBB's claims.

But The left should actually encourage the GOP to make real attempts to change Roe V Wade and strip the LGBT community of their newly won and deserved rights these next 4 years. The GOP can't get out of its own way on these issues and likely will shoot themselves in the foot here and you'll be able to flip everything in four years if Trump and the GOP head down this path.

On second thought, don't respond to any of the above. This whole dialogue is a waste of my time.

Quote: MathExtremist

That doesn't matter. We shouldn't focus on capital efficiency first and foremost when providing public goods. It is more important that they are provided at all.

We can certainly spell $20 trillion deficit. Even if we have difficulty picturing such a sum. As for the basis of the armed forces, I favor truly universal conscription, or at least a mandatory term of public service for the physically fit.

Quote: MathExtremist

The constitution can (and has) been changed. The question is whether you see a moral difference between for-profit provision of one public good (healthcare) vs. another public good (defense).

In the case of the Affordable Care Act, the Constitution was NOT changed. Roberts's decision changed the law that Congress wrote to make the penalty a "tax," a word that Congress specifically and repeatedly disowned in this instance.

Quote: AZDuffman

Your statement assumes that there are no administrators or other "extra costs" in a public system. Why don't you just come out and be honest and say that you are against profit and prefer a socialist system.

If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it is "free!" Costs or wait times will go up, but given how government runs things probably both will.

So you're calling me a liar unless I agree with the words you're trying to put into my mouth. Nice mansplaining, AZD, but once again, wrong wrong wrong. I meant what I said.

Quote: ams288

In the last week or so, 10 police officers have been shot. 6 are dead.

Why haven't we heard the outrage from the Blue Lives Matter people?

Because they were all shot by white men.

Blue lives only matter when you can scapegoat black men against them.

I'll take Black Lives Matter over Blue Lives Matter any day of the week. At least they are consistent.

Could it be because the media does not cover it as much because there is no racial component to these particular LEO killings?

Most violent incidents are found mentioned on the "Blue Lives Matter" site...

http://bluelivesmatter.blue/

I spent a few days nearly off the grid at our deer lease. We have the basics and are not in a "primitive" setting in any way, but it is easy to ignore the TV and just enjoy the beauty of the Texas Hill Country. Deer were plentiful and I enjoyed watching them for several days before deciding to harvest an animal this morning. Anyway, meat for the freezer and on back to reality.

Trump is putting together his team. He has a tough job ahead of him. The machine in Washington won't change on a dime not matter what mandate was sent to them. Both parties are full of crap in a lot of ways and many politicians are only concerned about staying in power, not being in power to help the people. For example, both sides have been in bed on immigration, which is likely why not a lot has really been done. Some rich Republican supporters want the cheap labor that illegal aliens can provide; some Democrats want to figure out a way to get more automatic voters. It doesn't take ALL of either party to make that kind of thing happen; just a willingness of too many to do nothing because they might lose an election and have to get a job.

There are some protesters. I have no problem with that; I just hope they aren't neglecting the important things like paying the bills, learning, etc. I guess some are getting paid for it. That matters more when it pertains to something like the Tea Party than to more liberal causes when it comes to our far and even-handed media; anyone who believes what those useless idiots sell without thinking on their own is seriously misinformed. I'm not really "down" with the flag burners--the flag represents all of us, not just the people you don't like...but I guess you have the right to burn it. The thugs among the folks out there--well, they are slime. There is really no need to burn anything or loot just because Trump won. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

The election broke in a way that I could see happening but not one that I expected to happen. I know people will clamor to change the electoral college system, but it is actually a system that is working the way it was intended. Going to the popular vote would allow the more populated states to dominate even more than they do now (with more electoral votes based on population already in their favor).

Quote: EvenBob

Trump had a rally here earlier this week
and I went. 15,000+ people there, the
energy in the crowd was like it was New
Years Eve. My brother in law went to the
last rally here and just raved about it.

If he got this kind of reaction everywhere
he went, and we heard he did, I don't know
to what to make of it unless the people
of the US are just sick and tired of the status
quo. It was a vote against something rather
than a vote for something. We don't know
what we'll get, but we're sick of what we had.

You really hit the nail square on the head. Even the poll on here reflects what the Hillary crowd turns a blind eye to.

Still unhappy with the people Trump is bringing in.

But TPP has been declared "stone dead" in many reports, preserving economic stability for thousands of families.

Better still, Leena Dunham wrote this. How does this not brighten the day of every American?

Quote: Rigondeaux

Still unhappy with the people Trump is bringing in.

But TPP has been declared "stone dead" in many reports, preserving economic stability for thousands of families.

Better still, Leena Dunham wrote this. How does this not brighten the day of every American?

How does it brighten your day, to read about someone's sorrow? I thought you were a better person than to gloat like this.

[q=Paradigm

the Canadian System who's citizens cross the borders for the good docs and no lines.




You've tried to slam the Canadian system by saying this. It needs a much more in depth analysis. They've had this system for a long, long time. If it was so horrible they would have changed it by now. Canada does not have an ineffective political system.