Who Will Get Dem Nomination?

Discussion in 'The Slant Political Board' started by Jmerhawk, Sep 12, 2019.

  1. Jmerhawk

    Jmerhawk Freshman
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    950
    Likes Received:
    497
    Bernie, Warren, Biden?

    Whoever it is is getting my vote. The Dem nomination could literally read “sack of shit” and I would still vote for it in 2020. Anything is better than the current fat embarrassment.

    Normally I do my research and spend time on the issues. I have voted for both parties in the past. Not this time. I don’t even have to read anything. Easiest decision I’ve ever made and we’re still over a year away.
     
  2. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,441
    Likes Received:
    494
    My prediction is Warren.

    I know Nick and probably a few others will disagree, but here's my reasoning for it:

    I think Bernie has a bit of a ceiling, and a problem with Warren. She is very similar in policy positions and has a more polished style. For some, that's a Bernie charm, but for enough I think they'll drift to a more 'traditionally' styled politician.

    Biden is really struggling but he'll stabilize - he's too seasoned a politician to get caught flat-footed too often. The problem with him is he's a throwback to an era most Ds don't want to revisit. He talks of trying to work with the GOP, avoiding hard turns, and being a centrist. The base is too fired up to go there and history has shown the GOP has no interest in bipartisanship so arguing Ds need to talk to the GOP comes off as naive and maddening.

    Kamala has a definite ceiling and will hang around then drop out. She has enough skeletons in her professional background to sink her ship.

    Mayor Pete is shooting for VP and raising money and his name for a Gov or statewide office later in life.

    The rest of the candidates are playing for money for future elections that aren't for P.

    Just my 2 cents and there is so much time anything could happen.

    As for Sack of Shit, thankfully he's an R.
     
  3. kcjhawk23

    kcjhawk23 Junior
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    3,505
    Likes Received:
    1,688
    You're so open minded.
     
  4. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,441
    Likes Received:
    494
    Saying (s)he despises the President's actions so much that any of the Ds improve the situation does not mean he's close-minded. We know who one candidate is and we know the general policies of his opponent. Saying the President is so odious they'll vote for anyone else doesn't mean they approached the candidates with a closed-mind approach, it just means the R candidate is that bad.
     
  5. kcjhawk23

    kcjhawk23 Junior
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    3,505
    Likes Received:
    1,688
    So voting for people who want to tear the foundation apart upon which this country was founded is worth it because orange man bad?
     
    Marlattman84, jt212713 and rhawker like this.
  6. cornstalk

    cornstalk Freshman
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,066
    Likes Received:
    201
    I do not care for who you vote for, just do not want you complaining about medicare for all, I will remind you if you complain on here
     
  7. Jmerhawk

    Jmerhawk Freshman
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    950
    Likes Received:
    497
    You want a bigger military and to make billionaires richer? That's the only thing we need to cut for everyone to have great insurance. What is more American than that? The US already has the worlds largest military 20 x over. Why does it need to get bigger when medical costs are outrageous and people die from being under-insured? You love giving the Koch's more money to hold onto so you cant have it?
     
  8. nick77

    nick77 All-Conference
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    8,134
    Likes Received:
    782
    Location:
    Chicago
    Bernie.

    Feel free to read all 30 pages of this thread for extended analysis.
     
    rhawker and Jmerhawk like this.
  9. Jmerhawk

    Jmerhawk Freshman
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    950
    Likes Received:
    497
    I really hope so. I like Bernie's and Warren's policies. As much as I want to deny it though, there are those that simply wont vote for a woman when their vote is private. Either would carry the states they are supposed to carry but you get into the swing states and that's where it gets dicey. At he end of the day- a bag of glass would have better Idea's than Trump... so lets just make sure we put the person in there that will beat his azz.
     
    nick77 likes this.
  10. RMHawk

    RMHawk All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2001
    Messages:
    13,089
    Likes Received:
    4,250
    Location:
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Too early to make a guess. This time in 2016 cycle the presumed R candidate was Jeb Bush. The D candidate has to be competitive in the 15 states that will decide the winner. Other than Florida, I see the coasts as predictable D. I do not think a candidate from Mass or Cal can pursuede enough voters in the 15 to overcome Trump. Dems need to get beyond fairy tales of a big 2020 victory and grassroots organize in the 15 with a slogan to match what Trump and Obama did. Voters not hard Right or Left don't want policy wonk lectures. They look for trust. And they are a majority of general election voters. That's how both Obama and Trump won.
     
  11. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,441
    Likes Received:
    494
    Actually it seems orange man is the one doing that.
     
  12. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,107
    Likes Received:
    1,529
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    You're so seriously wrong it's not even funny. 'Great insurance' for everyone is going to cost so much more than that...the comparison is laughable. And don't get me started on increasing medical costs.
     
    jt212713 likes this.
  13. Jmerhawk

    Jmerhawk Freshman
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    950
    Likes Received:
    497
     
  14. AZ j-hawk

    AZ j-hawk All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2004
    Messages:
    12,677
    Likes Received:
    1,826
    Beto - Day 1 in office? Take those guns baby!!
     
  15. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,107
    Likes Received:
    1,529
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    Jmerhawk said:
    You want a bigger military and to make billionaires richer? That's the only thing we need to cut for everyone to have great insurance. What is more American than that? The US already has the worlds largest military 20 x over. Why does it need to get bigger when medical costs are outrageous and people die from being under-insured? You love giving the Koch's more money to hold onto so you cant have it?

    Do you seriously need me to point out the stupidity? Fine. The military budget for a full year is $680B. If we completely shut down the military, we could in theory save that $680B. The cost of Medicare for all according to multiple studies including the one that Bernie and AOC reference? $32T over 10 yrs. So if we gutted the military, basically didn't have one any more, it would save $6.8T over the same 10 yrs...or 20% of the funding needed to pay for it.

    Hence the stupidity of saying cutting the military would pay for it.
     
  16. Jmerhawk

    Jmerhawk Freshman
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    950
    Likes Received:
    497
    But you only talk about the military...and I'm not suggesting shutting down the military. Don't be an idiot. If we cut spending on corporate tax breaks, military budget, Wall Street loopholes, eliminate the stupid wall project, have corporations pay 10% of the premium costs for healthcare, income based premiums for households making over 100k, fix the pharmaceutical industry so they are not a for profit industry, start progressive income tax: There is more than enough money to pay off Federal Student Loans, Medicare for All, And Free In-State Tuition. Yes we would still add to the federal deficit yearly (mostly for military), but not the way we are adding to it at the current pace.
     
  17. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,107
    Likes Received:
    1,529
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    I never said you were talking about shutting down the military...I said that even if we did, it wouldn't even approach being a solution for the healthcare crisis. You have since added a bunch of other issues to the discussion that were not there before. Yes, if we did all that and added a massive tax increase, then yes we would have the money to pay for healthcare. Never mind that the additional things you suggest would gut our national economy.
     
    inthephog likes this.
  18. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,441
    Likes Received:
    494
    Out of curiosity, I hear this all the time when people talk of healthcare for all (as well as nearly every other 'left' proposal): "it will kill the economy."

    If it's such an economy killer, why isn't every other developed nation on Earth devastated economically from their health care system?
     
  19. jt212713

    jt212713 Senior
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    Messages:
    4,693
    Likes Received:
    5,739
    “Cut spending on corporate tax breaks”

    lol

    It’s hard to take your thoughts seriously if you believe that to be how it actually works!

    And you’re anything but open-minded based on your other posts. That’s fine, just own it. You want free stuff and want someone else to pay for all of it.
     
    Marlattman84 likes this.
  20. RMHawk

    RMHawk All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2001
    Messages:
    13,089
    Likes Received:
    4,250
    Location:
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Set aside the economic cost/benefit impact debate for now. The one thing the Left hates worse than anything about what it calls ‘free’ This or That is a simple admission that nothing is free. This or That is paid for by federal taxes. Period. Coming clean about the $ to be paid by payers to various payees is simple and necessary transparency. Then the debate can shift openly to the policy desirability part: cost (taxes) vs benefits (economic, etc.). And for a dig at the Right, get past the cost accounting. And make a cogent argument about the appropriate role of government in our economy. And how much of our lives should be managed/directed by government. Without taking sides for now, the Left is more articulate at this than the Right.
     
  21. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,107
    Likes Received:
    1,529
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    Look up what Great Britain is saying about their health care system. They were contemplating scrapping it a couple years back because of the cost.

    But the macro answer is a very complicated one:
    1. This is an opinion, but I think our government is much more inefficient than theirs for the most part.
    2. Size- most of the countries we get compared to have populations of 50-80M...we are over 300M. The task at hand to convert 300M to universal healthcare is orders of scale more complicated.
    3. Health- generally speaking the US population is not as healthy as the other countries...in many cases significantly so. Most of the countries we get compared to are in the top 15 as far as general health of the population. We are 35th.
    4. Conducive to Socialism- Many of the countries we get compared to are more conducive to socialist programs. We have socialistic tendencies just not on the same scale. The US is much more individualistic.
    5. Health standards- there is a mentality in the US that everything here has to be the best, top-notch, greatest quality possible. I've found more 'realistic' expectations in other countries.
    6. R&D- The US sports the majority of pharmaceutical R&D in the world. Other countries that don't have that burden benefit anyway without the R&D cost. Add on to that they could bypass even more cost by making their own drugs by ignoring US patent law.

    All of these reasons increase the cost beyond what other countries incur. And then add on the US' aversion to higher taxes? BTW, I didn't call it an economy killer...but it would definitely put us into a long-term recession, if not depression.
     
  22. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,107
    Likes Received:
    1,529
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    The appropriate role of gov't is just enough to keep the water on and the lights going. And the military. That's it, the bare minimum.
     
    Marlattman84 likes this.
  23. jayhawkart

    jayhawkart Senior
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,887
    Likes Received:
    3,781
    Location:
    Lawrence
    I will say Biden, then Warren and then Bernie.

    I don't know that much about her but I've been most impressed with Tulsi Gabbard when she speaks. She has no chance.
     
  24. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,441
    Likes Received:
    494
    Fair, you said it would "gut" the economy. Do you think those other economies have been gutted?

    As for individual points, I'll post here:

    Fair enough. I don't know either way if we're more inefficient or not.
    I'm not sure I agree with this assumption. We have aspects of universal healthcare already in place and whether you're doing 80M or 300M, the structure is the same. Will it possibly take longer? Sure. But that doesn't mean it's going to gut the economy, it just means it'll be a slower implementation time.

    Agree, but isn't it possible that a potential cause of that is many in the US don't have healthcare, meaning early detection of health problems go untreated, leading to an unhealthier population on the whole?

    Agree. But how does that impact negatively our economy?

    I would also argue Americans are adaptable. We have tons of socialist programs that are generally accepted by the population.

    I've also found Americans will say that without any real knowledge of what that means. A lot of what we brag about would be considered substandard in other countries. And Americans put up with a lot of crap that isn't top notch.

    But most countries we're compared to don't ignore patent law. Not to mention, I don't see increased drug costs - if they come - gutting our economy.
     
  25. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,107
    Likes Received:
    1,529
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    I'm not sure I agree with this assumption. We have aspects of universal healthcare already in place and whether you're doing 80M or 300M, the structure is the same. Will it possibly take longer? Sure. But that doesn't mean it's going to gut the economy, it just means it'll be a slower implementation time.

    We have aspects of UHC in place that are failing...if they were working at least they'd represent a start. Obamacare has been a dumpster fire so far.

    And no, the structure is not remotely the same between 80M and 300M. The infrastructure needed to service 80M wouldn't stand a chance against 300M. Not to mention all the demographic differences between populations.


    Agree, but isn't it possible that a potential cause of that is many in the US don't have healthcare, meaning early detection of health problems go untreated, leading to an unhealthier population on the whole?

    I'm speaking mainly of the obesity problem, which has nothing to do with healthcare and plenty to do with people just not taking care of themselves. Drinking soda, eating processed foods, too much sugar, etc. Healthcare can't regulate your diet.


    Agree. But how does that impact negatively our economy?

    It affects our economy because of how much more work and money its going to cost to create this HC infrastructure to accomodate so many different views of what HC should be. The US is very individualistic so we'll expect our individual needs to be taken into account.


    I would also argue Americans are adaptable. We have tons of socialist programs that are generally accepted by the population.

    I don't think we're adaptable at all. We rail on the very idea of a tax increase...you should know better than I how hard it is to get people to accept new ideas. And accepting a massive tax increase to provide UHC to every citizen?


    I've also found Americans will say that without any real knowledge of what that means. A lot of what we brag about would be considered substandard in other countries. And Americans put up with a lot of crap that isn't top notch.

    I agree they don't. But every time someone brings something up that is the next big thing, everyone expects to have it, expects it to work easily, expects it to cost next to nothing and loses their shit if its more complicated than falling off a log.


    But most countries we're compared to don't ignore patent law. Not to mention, I don't see increased drug costs

    That's exactly why they ARE ignoring patent law. Why do Americans go to Canada and Mexico to get drugs? Because its cheaper...why is it cheaper? Because those companies didn't incur the R&D to develop the drug...they just make the drug that someone else developed.
     
  26. viviajm

    viviajm Ring of Honor
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    15,166
    Likes Received:
    2,473
    Location:
    Liberty, MO
    My order is :
    Biden
    Warren
    Warren will get many of the Bernie losers votes. Hilary rides in and throws her support to Warren. Obama stays mum about Biden until close to the end.
     
  27. RMHawk

    RMHawk All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2001
    Messages:
    13,089
    Likes Received:
    4,250
    Location:
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Those who say that government is less efficient than insurance companies in delivering health care need to tell me why that is true when Medicare overheads are lower than insurance companies overheads. I’m not a big government person but our largely private health care system is the most expensive in the world and delivers mediocre macro results. I’d fire a department head that ran an operation like that.
     
    AZ j-hawk and nick77 like this.
  28. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,107
    Likes Received:
    1,529
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    Easy, there are five reasons.
    1. The amount of regulation and reporting requirements that insurance companies have to comply with is staggering. Most insurance companies have whole departments whose only goal is to stay in compliance with federal and state regulation and providing required reporting. Most also have cadres of lawyers that do consulting and accounting firms and physicians and...and...and... Medicare doesn't have to comply with those regulations or reporting requirements.
    2. The federal gov't is not interested in making a profit, so they don't need departments whose goal is to track profitability and efficiency. Private insurance companies do because they have stakeholders to answer to.
    3. Medicare is coverage for roughly 14% of Americans, or 48M people. Private Insurance covers 57% or 186M people. You better believe that if Medicare covered everyone, there's no way they'd be able to maintain the efficiencies they have now.
    4. Medicare predominantly covers the elderly. The elderly, generally speaking, have the same health problems across the board. That allows for efficiencies in research. Private insurance companies serve the entire spectrum. For instance, Medicare doesn't have to deal with obstetrics and taking care of babies...ins cos do. Medicare doesn't need to worry about the uninsured...ins cos do. Medicare doesn't need to worry about childhood illnesses and birth control and vaccinations and... Medicare can afford to be more efficient because they're only serving a narrow cross-section of the population. Ins cos don't have that luxury.
    5. Gov't-provided insurance is take it or leave it...private insurance allows people to shop and they will leave if they don't like their coverage. That affects the costs required to provide a better product. Gov't doesn't give a damn.

    There's a fifth but its more of a suspicion. #5 is I question when they say they only have 2% admin cost...given how the gov't works and how everything is intertwined, I'd be curious to see what they include and what they don't. I think what they include and don't would be enlightening.
     
  29. RMHawk

    RMHawk All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2001
    Messages:
    13,089
    Likes Received:
    4,250
    Location:
    Sioux Falls, SD
    OK. I get your points but I still need an answer to my main point - we have the most expensive health care system in the industrial world and at best have mediocre macro results. I repeat: I’d fire a department head with those results.
     
  30. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,107
    Likes Received:
    1,529
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    So would I. But when you have gov't intrusion into an industry you're going to have inefficiencies....and they're inefficiencies that I would not blame on the dept head.
     
  31. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,441
    Likes Received:
    494
    And no, the structure is not remotely the same between 80M and 300M. The infrastructure needed to service 80M wouldn't stand a chance against 300M. Not to mention all the demographic differences between populations.

    But the program doesn't need drastic modifications. Yes, there is increased infrastructure, but we have most of that in place and we have blueprints around the world.

    I'm speaking mainly of the obesity problem, which has nothing to do with healthcare and plenty to do with people just not taking care of themselves. Drinking soda, eating processed foods, too much sugar, etc. Healthcare can't regulate your diet.


    Healthcare doesn't directly benefit diet - though it can - but the impacts of obesity are healthcare related.

    It affects our economy because of how much more work and money its going to cost to create this HC infrastructure to accomodate so many different views of what HC should be. The US is very individualistic so we'll expect our individual needs to be taken into account.


    I don't agree with this. Again, every country does this and does this better than us. I don't see Americans wanting personalized anything changing how we set everything up. Americans just want to get the care they want, few care how that is accomplished.

    I don't think we're adaptable at all. We rail on the very idea of a tax increase...you should know better than I how hard it is to get people to accept new ideas. And accepting a massive tax increase to provide UHC to every citizen?


    I think you're underselling Americans. It has to do with having the right politician and the right message which isn't that hard.

    I agree they don't. But every time someone brings something up that is the next big thing, everyone expects to have it, expects it to work easily, expects it to cost next to nothing and loses their shit if its more complicated than falling off a log.


    People bitch, they do that everywhere.

    That's exactly why they ARE ignoring patent law. Why do Americans go to Canada and Mexico to get drugs? Because its cheaper...why is it cheaper? Because those companies didn't incur the R&D to develop the drug...they just make the drug that someone else developed.
    [

    Except oftentimes it's the same drug they are buying in Mexico and Canada. it's cheaper because their healthcare system.
     
  32. RMHawk

    RMHawk All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2001
    Messages:
    13,089
    Likes Received:
    4,250
    Location:
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Agree to partly disagree. We ought to have a beer together.
     
    bjabrad likes this.
  33. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,107
    Likes Received:
    1,529
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    But the program doesn't need drastic modifications. Yes, there is increased infrastructure, but we have most of that in place and we have blueprints around the world.

    We do not have it in place. PRIVATE COMPANIES have it in place. Last I looked, the gov't doesn't have jack squat for infrastructure.

    Healthcare doesn't directly benefit diet - though it can - but the impacts of obesity are healthcare related.

    The impact completely are, but that's exactly the problem...one that the US would have to deal with that other countries don't. Hence why I brought it up.

    I don't agree with this. Again, every country does this and does this better than us. I don't see Americans wanting personalized anything changing how we set everything up. Americans just want to get the care they want, few care how that is accomplished.

    You said it just right...they want what they want. That is the epitome of wanting personalized care.

    I think you're underselling Americans. It has to do with having the right politician and the right message which isn't that hard.

    I think you're overselling the willingness of Americans to agree on anything. As for having the 'right politician and the right message', if it isn't that hard, then why hasn't it happened in the last 70 years?!

    People bitch, they do that everywhere.

    Not remotely on the level that it happens here.


    Except oftentimes it's the same drug they are buying in Mexico and Canada. it's cheaper because their healthcare system.

    Wrong, it's cheaper because they didn't have to develop it...someone did it and they profited off someone else's discovery.
     
  34. viviajm

    viviajm Ring of Honor
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    15,166
    Likes Received:
    2,473
    Location:
    Liberty, MO
    f
     
  35. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,441
    Likes Received:
    494
    We do not have it in place. PRIVATE COMPANIES have it in place. Last I looked, the gov't doesn't have jack squat for infrastructure.

    So you don't think slight modifications of medicare would work?

    The impact completely are, but that's exactly the problem...one that the US would have to deal with that other countries don't. Hence why I brought it up.

    But I also think that healthcare can help address the obesity problem. How many times do you hear someone say, "I gotta lose weight, doc says..."

    You said it just right...they want what they want. That is the epitome of wanting personalized care.

    Fair enough, but people also choose based on cost, not necessarily the ideal desire. If they still want to pay for private so they can personalize, I have no problem with that.

    I think you're overselling the willingness of Americans to agree on anything. As for having the 'right politician and the right message', if it isn't that hard, then why hasn't it happened in the last 70 years?!

    Because it wasn't as needed. Costs have gone up, insurance costs have gone up, and we have more people incapable of making ends meet.

    Not remotely on the level that it happens here.


    Have you traveled much? Complaining is a national pastime in countries in Europe.

    Wrong, it's cheaper because they didn't have to develop it...someone did it and they profited off someone else's discovery.
    [

    Of the top 5 drug companies, 3 are European. Of the top 10, half are European. The US is hardly the only cat in the game.
     
  36. cornstalk

    cornstalk Freshman
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,066
    Likes Received:
    201
    If there doing so good why did President have to get them pay up there portion
     
  37. Nipro

    Nipro Senior
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    4,136
    Likes Received:
    1,894
    You mean dimwitted? You have to have lost your mind to vote for any of those three complete messes.
     
  38. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,107
    Likes Received:
    1,529
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    So you don't think slight modifications of medicare would work?

    No, it would take a fundamental change in how we look at healthcare in this country, not to mention a massive capital outlay and a trillion dollar per year budget. Where does the money come from?

    But I also think that healthcare can help address the obesity problem. How many times do you hear someone say, "I gotta lose weight, doc says..."

    In theory, yes, that can happen. But that's not the point...the point is that its a problem Americans have that other countries do not. Hence the reason why the comparison doesn't work.

    Fair enough, but people also choose based on cost, not necessarily the ideal desire. If they still want to pay for private so they can personalize, I have no problem with that.

    Except that's not Universal Healthcare...that's more like what Obamacare is trying to do...and failing.

    Because it wasn't as needed. Costs have gone up, insurance costs have gone up, and we have more people incapable of making ends meet.

    Except that's been going on for 30 yrs. It's coming to a head now, but its been brewing for a while.

    Have you traveled much? Complaining is a national pastime in countries in Europe.

    I have...and I have not found that to be the case. I've found that the Scottish, Danish, and Swiss(the countries I've been to) are generally pretty content. But I'm heading to Spain, France, and Italy next year. Maybe I'll hear some of the complaining then.

    Of the top 5 drug companies, 3 are European. Of the top 10, half are European. The US is hardly the only cat in the game.

    I didn't hear any Canadian or Mexican companies in that list...?
     
  39. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,441
    Likes Received:
    494
    No, it would take a fundamental change in how we look at healthcare in this country, not to mention a massive capital outlay and a trillion dollar per year budget. Where does the money come from?

    For sure it will take a reorg of the budget/taxes. But as for the infrastructure of actually providing the insurance, I think Medicare, while imperfect, provides a blueprint - not to mention the dozens of effective universal healthcare programs worldwide.

    In theory, yes, that can happen. But that's not the point...the point is that its a problem Americans have that other countries do not. Hence the reason why the comparison doesn't work.

    But I think that's ignoring the fact a big part of the reason we have the problem is because of poor healthcare. Maybe it's a chicken/egg problem.

    Except that's not Universal Healthcare...that's more like what Obamacare is trying to do...and failing.

    Depends on how you set it up. You can do an Obamacare version with universal medicare as a backdrop.

    Except that's been going on for 30 yrs. It's coming to a head now, but its been brewing for a while.

    And as you know political palatability changes with time.

    I have...and I have not found that to be the case. I've found that the Scottish, Danish, and Swiss(the countries I've been to) are generally pretty content. But I'm heading to Spain, France, and Italy next year. Maybe I'll hear some of the complaining then.

    You picked probably the best countries for that. When you get to France and Italy I think you'll see a different vibe. Italy is a world unto itself for complaining.

    Vacation or work?

    I didn't hear any Canadian or Mexican companies in that list...?
    [

    We get medicine from Canada and Mexico because of proximity. If we wanted cheap drugs, we could just as easily hit Europe where those countries are from.
     
  40. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,107
    Likes Received:
    1,529
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    For sure it will take a reorg of the budget/taxes. But as for the infrastructure of actually providing the insurance, I think Medicare, while imperfect, provides a blueprint - not to mention the dozens of effective universal healthcare programs worldwide.

    A general guide, but any system that works would hardly resemble either Medicare or other UHC programs. And saying 'it will take a reorg of the budget/taxes' is a massive understatement. It would fundamentally change gov't in its totality.

    But I think that's ignoring the fact a big part of the reason we have the problem is because of poor healthcare. Maybe it's a chicken/egg problem.

    Except the obesity problem is not specific to the underinsured. It also applies to groups that have the best of health insurances. I think the obesity comes from the general attitude of the average American and very little to do with access to healthcare. Now, correcting the problem would have a lot to do with access to healthcare, but not the original problem.

    Depends on how you set it up. You can do an Obamacare version with universal medicare as a backdrop.

    How would that work though...they kind of contradict each other. A universal healthcare program inherently has to include everyone...otherwise its not universal right? Obamacare allows for either, UHC does not in my experience.

    You picked probably the best countries for that. When you get to France and Italy I think you'll see a different vibe. Italy is a world unto itself for complaining.

    Vacation or work?

    Denmark and Switzerland was work...the rest was/is vacation. I'm turning 50 pretty soon and my family is taking a two week Mediterranean cruise. Will probably hit Greece, Slovakia and Morocco as well.

    We get medicine from Canada and Mexico because of proximity. If we wanted cheap drugs, we could just as easily hit Europe where those countries are from.

    And we'd have the exact same problems. Although my understanding is that European companies generally have agreements with American co's for their drugs, so I doubt we'd get the same price in Europe as we do in Mexico.
     

Share This Page