2020...

nononono said:
A fake Dossier is not a basis for fake conspiracy accusations against a
duly elected President........
Roger Stone is a nothing burger from a nothing Special Council that
made up process crimes to charge Russians and individuals who had the
unfortunate circumstance of being on a WINNING Presidential Campaign.
A fake Dossier is the basis for dozens upon dozens of treasonous charges
to be brought against filthy criminal Democrats.....
Adam Schiff for Brains, Jerry Nadler and Elijah Cummings are digging
their own graves in history.....The History of Criminals !
Click to expand...
"Process crime" is a term invented by these Trump crooks to try to minimize the fact that they're all a bunch of crooks. It's pretty funny. The sleazy idiots and Fox News invented a phrase!
 
tenacious said:
Per Wiki the entire US budget for 2018 was $4.1 trillion, and a big chunk of that was paid for via deficit spending.
Click to expand...
I know. But we already pay 3.2 trillion. That is the gdp of healthcare in the US. We know a streamlined system has historically shown a lower cost per citizen. We are at roughly $10k per citizen. Most developed countries are about half that.
 
MARsSPEED said:
Nope, I'm done. Debating Dems is like playing chess with a pigeon. The pigeon does not follow the rules/facts, walks around, knocks all the pieces over, shits all over the board, and then claims victory.

That's the problem with this world today. Your feelings are more important than actual facts.
Click to expand...
Sure, yeah, ok.
 
Andy Dukes said:
I know. But we already pay 3.2 trillion. That is the gdp of healthcare in the US. We know a streamlined system has historically shown a lower cost per citizen. We are at roughly $10k per citizen. Most developed countries are about half that.
Click to expand...

Going back to David Brooks column... take a moment to consider what how this transition to single payer will play out for taxpayers. The 170 million or so American's who have work subsidized private insurance (think Union labors and also the college educated middle class working for large companies) will be looking at a one size fits all insurance plans that likely don't offer as much as what they've got now; not to mention much longer waits for things like seeing specialists. Also the $33 Trillion price tag is dependent on politicians "ruthlessly" forcing spending cuts down the throats of special interests (which I think we'd both agree is easier said then done in a world where Citizens United is the law of the land).

I agree we need to find a way to lower the cost of healthcare... but good intentions don't make this a winning political issue for democrats.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/opinion/medicare-for-all.html?module=inline
"Once they learn that Medicare for all would eliminate private insurance and raise taxes, only 37 percent of Americans support it, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey. In 2010, Republicans scored an enormous electoral victory because voters feared that the government was taking over their health care, even though Obamacare really didn’t. Now, under Medicare for all, it really would. This seems like an excellent way to re-elect Donald Trump.

The government would also have to transition. Medicare for all works only if politicians ruthlessly enforce those spending cuts. But in our system of government, members of Congress are terrible at fiscal discipline. They are quick to cater to special interest groups, terrible at saying no. To make single-payer really work, we’d probably have to scrap the U.S. Congress and move to a more centralized parliamentary system.

Finally, patient expectations would have to transition. Today, getting a doctor’s appointment is annoying but not onerous. In Canada, the median wait time between seeing a general practitioner and a specialist is 8.7 weeks; between a G.P. referral and an orthopedic surgeon, it’s nine months. That would take some adjusting."
 
tenacious said:
Going back to David Brooks column... take a moment to consider what how this transition to single payer will play out for taxpayers. The 170 million or so American's who have work subsidized private insurance (think Union labors and also the college educated middle class working for large companies) will be looking at a one size fits all insurance plans that likely don't offer as much as what they've got now; not to mention much longer waits for things like seeing specialists. Also the $33 Trillion price tag is dependent on politicians "ruthlessly" forcing spending cuts down the throats of special interests (which I think we'd both agree is easier said then done in a world where Citizens United is the law of the land).

I agree we need to find a way to lower the cost of healthcare... but good intentions don't make this a winning political issue for democrats.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/opinion/medicare-for-all.html?module=inline
"Once they learn that Medicare for all would eliminate private insurance and raise taxes, only 37 percent of Americans support it, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey. In 2010, Republicans scored an enormous electoral victory because voters feared that the government was taking over their health care, even though Obamacare really didn’t. Now, under Medicare for all, it really would. This seems like an excellent way to re-elect Donald Trump.

The government would also have to transition. Medicare for all works only if politicians ruthlessly enforce those spending cuts. But in our system of government, members of Congress are terrible at fiscal discipline. They are quick to cater to special interest groups, terrible at saying no. To make single-payer really work, we’d probably have to scrap the U.S. Congress and move to a more centralized parliamentary system.

Finally, patient expectations would have to transition. Today, getting a doctor’s appointment is annoying but not onerous. In Canada, the median wait time between seeing a general practitioner and a specialist is 8.7 weeks; between a G.P. referral and an orthopedic surgeon, it’s nine months. That would take some adjusting."
Click to expand...
All those points are valid. That is why I support a transition to something along the lines of our current Medicare system that is not a one size fit all system at all. Where people can by up out of a basic plan. Kind of like Folgers as the standard and the ability to buy up to Starbucks are a French Press.
 
Lion Eyes said:
Nice try indeed.
Forbes magazine was the publisher of the article, not me ya wanker.
Perhaps you should read the article & then comment on it....or stick you head back where it feels comfortable.
Click to expand...
Aren’t you curious why Paulie was sharing polling data with Kilimnik? What was the Russian supposed to do with that data, I wonder. Don’t you wonder?
 
Andy Dukes said:
All those points are valid. That is why I support a transition to something along the lines of our current Medicare system that is not a one size fit all system at all. Where people can by up out of a basic plan. Kind of like Folgers as the standard and the ability to buy up to Starbucks are a French Press.
Click to expand...

Personally I think single-payer makes a lot of sense, and is an issue that deserves attention. That said, there are a lot of issues that deserve attention (and money) and no way Dem's can push them all through at the same time... so we can't ignore the need to pick our battles. Promising we're going to fix infrastructure, offer a Green New Deal, pay for everyone's college, set up single payer health care, pay for reparations, and give every young girl in America a new pony isn't only unrealistic but will get dem's laughed out of office.

So to me it's a question of priories. My thinking, is we just expended a ton of political capital on Obamacare and the public is finally starting to say they like it. So we promise to work on fixing that, and use our political capital for things like insuring that clean energy targets and environmental standards are worked into an infrastructure bill and future farm subsidies.
 
Andy Dukes said:
All those points are valid. That is why I support a transition to something along the lines of our current Medicare system that is not a one size fit all system at all. Where people can by up out of a basic plan. Kind of like Folgers as the standard and the ability to buy up to Starbucks are a French Press.
Click to expand...
French Press? Coffee done right ...
 
messy said:
"Process crime" is a term invented by these Trump crooks to try to minimize the fact that they're all a bunch of crooks. It's pretty funny. The sleazy idiots and Fox News invented a phrase!
Click to expand...


You are sleaze just by the demeanor and rhetoric displayed with each new post.....
 
Hüsker Dü said:
You are the sleaziest poster in here and that is saying something stood up against lil' joke, goober bear and molti.
Click to expand...



40825437-stock-vector-teasing-rat.jpg


Poor .....Poor..... Rodent.
 
It's funny, I know the Washington Post put this on the cover of their front page because it's meant to be a hit piece on Schultz. But to me, that they didn't bother to research any statistics about income, crime, schools- or go much beyond quotes about how he grew up in the "country club of the projects" tells me how scary he is to the entrenched elites and their game of dividing and conquer the masses.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ec8ed509d15_story.html?utm_term=.37f1a19c47ed
Howard Schultz says he grew up in a poor, rough place. Others called it the ‘country club of projects.’
 
tenacious said:
It's funny, I know the Washington Post put this on the cover of their front page because it's meant to be a hit piece on Schultz. But to me, that they didn't bother to research any statistics about income, crime, schools- or go much beyond quotes about how he grew up in the "country club of the projects" tells me how scary he is to the entrenched elites and their game of dividing and conquer the masses.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ec8ed509d15_story.html?utm_term=.37f1a19c47ed
Howard Schultz says he grew up in a poor, rough place. Others called it the ‘country club of projects.’
Click to expand...
Hit piece? It is only a hit piece if Schultz wants to get people to think he grew up in the Bronx of the 1970's.

Let's see, the place was not a federally funded housing project but a city built middle income project with minimum income needed.
He moved there the year it was built, with playgrounds and everything nice and new.
People were actively trying to get to live there as a great place to live.
Residents that actually lives there when he did refute claims that it was dangerous or rough. In fact they say it was nice and safe.




Howard is selling a story like all politicians do. He is getting caught in the fable part of it and he is not used to that kind of limelight. I doubt he survives this kind of scrutiny.
 
Andy Dukes said:
Hit piece? It is only a hit piece if Schultz wants to get people to think he grew up in the Bronx of the 1970's.

Let's see, the place was not a federally funded housing project but a city built middle income project with minimum income needed.
He moved there the year it was built, with playgrounds and everything nice and new.
People were actively trying to get to live there as a great place to live.
Residents that actually lives there when he did refute claims that it was dangerous or rough. In fact they say it was nice and safe.




Howard is selling a story like all politicians do. He is getting caught in the fable part of it and he is not used to that kind of limelight. I doubt he survives this kind of scrutiny.
Click to expand...

The same way Bernie Sanders ruined his reputation talking about his tough Brooklyn upbringing? Funny, no front page article in the WP on that...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top