Obamacare Lite

[yjacket]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Repealing Obamacare does not solve the healthcare problem that necessitated the Healthcare Debate that led to Obamacare in the first place.  Healthcare is broken

Negative it wasn't broken prior to ObamaCare.  Don't believe the false mantra.

ObamaCare was all about providing insurance to people who either couldn't afford it or didn't want it.  And that isn't a broken health care, that's how it is supposed to work.  Nobody has a right to health care, the person with Stage 4 cancer does not have the right to receive treatment.

As for right now, Health Care will always be broken b/c of the federal government.  Because the federal government got involved, it will now always mess with it and it will always cause more and more problems until people beg, yes they will beg for single-payer b/c health care is "broken".  And then to solve the problem of massive funding problems it will be a massive tax . . .just like Europe.  Welcome to the socialist dream . . .where no one can get ahead.

Fundamentally, you cannot provide healthcare to millions and millions of people from the federal government level without massive welfare and taxes to pay for it.  The fact that you don't see this as a conservative is deeply troubling . . .it means conservatism is dead if you can't even agree that the federal government should get out of health care.

Edited March 14, 2017 by yjacket

[anatess2]

46 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Negative it wasn't broken prior to ObamaCare.  Don't believe the false mantra.

ObamaCare was all about providing insurance to people who either couldn't afford it or didn't want it.  And that isn't a broken health care, that's how it is supposed to work.  Nobody has a right to health care, the person with Stage 4 cancer does not have the right to receive treatment.

As for right now, Health Care will always be broken b/c of the federal government.  Because the federal government got involved, it will now always mess with it and it will always cause more and more problems until people beg, yes they will beg for single-payer b/c health care is "broken".  And then to solve the problem of massive funding problems it will be a massive tax . . .just like Europe.  Welcome to the socialist dream . . .where no one can get ahead.

Fundamentally, you cannot provide healthcare to millions and millions of people from the federal government level without massive welfare and taxes to pay for it.  The fact that you don't see this as a conservative is deeply troubling . . .it means conservatism is dead if you can't even agree that the federal government should get out of health care.

You are funny.  IT WAS BROKEN.  Still is.  I explained  that on several threads on lds.net with the experience of my brother who was wanting to pursue his neurology specialization in an American institution.

YOU DID NOT HAVE A MARKET-BASED Healthcare System BEFORE Obamacare.  The American Healthcare System was tied up with Government Regulations that prevented it.  So, this is what you had - insurance companies controlled the market.  Going outside of insurance becomes cost prohibitive due to this monopoly.  They specifically had monopolies within state lines so much so that they can dictate to a doctor/hospital/healthcare provider how to manage their patient's care.  Therefore, medical students do not learn diagnosis in American health institutions.  Rather, they learn insurance protocols.  So when my brother went on his interview for Residency, he was given a stack of patient files and asked what his prognosis is and what recommendation he will give.  My brother gave them what he thought and the Head of Residency said, we have to first send this thing to the lab.  My brother said, you don't need the lab - it's an unnecessary expense at this point.  The Head said no, if something happens the hospital will get sued.  My brother said, it's ok if you get sued, I can provide medical testimony to support this decision.  The Head said no, that's not enough, you need proof.  My brother said, I'm a doctor, I am proof.  The Head said no, that's not proof.  My brother went home back to the Philippines the next day.  

That is FACT - the American Healthcare System even before Obamacare, do not practice Medicine.  They practice Medical Statistics - curing an ailment according to what the Insurance covers and what is defensible in court.  If you don't consider that broken then, it's not a wonder that American Society is the richest sick people on the planet.

Edited March 14, 2017 by anatess2

[yjacket]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

You are funny.  IT WAS BROKEN.  Still is.  I explained  that on several threads on lds.net with the experience of my brother who was wanting to pursue his neurology specialization in an American institution.

And you're advocating for it to be even more broken. If you want to fix it, rather than push your phony-boy conservative Paul Ryan, why not advocate for a plan that actually does what you want-the Rand Paul bill?

That's the thing I don't get . . .people get more tied up in personalities than in actually doing the right thing.  I'm not tied up in PR, or Trump, or whoever, I care for the right solutions, which is primarily less government, less regulation and more individual responsibility.

Edited March 15, 2017 by yjacket

[anatess2]

12 hours ago, yjacket said:

And you're advocating for it to be even more broken. If you want to fix it, rather than push your phony-boy conservative Paul Ryan, why not advocate for a plan that actually does what you want-the Rand Paul bill?

That's the thing I don't get . . .people get more tied up in personalities than in actually doing the right thing.  I'm not tied up in PR, or Trump, or whoever, I care for the right solutions, which is primarily less government, less regulation and more individual responsibility.

DID YOU NOT READ MY OP???????  WHAT THE...

[yjacket]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

DID YOU NOT READ MY OP???????  WHAT THE...

You started off good in the OP, but then basically changed to defending Paul Ryan (don't know why you have a love affair with him).  Defending Paul Ryan who is defending this bill and then saying the bill is crap is hypocrisy.

The main point being that this bill is absolutely 100% representative of Paul Ryan's true feelings on health care-i.e. he is not a conservative. And if this is his idea of negotiating, he needs to go back to kindergarten Negotiation 101.  You never begin negotiations with what you think the other side will accept, you start of at the most extreme point possible and still have the other side talk.

He has failed that miserably, the Democrats don't want to talk about this bill (so he failed to talk with them) and a significant portion of his own party doesn't want to talk about it (so he failed with them).  Starting off negotiations at the "middle ground" is a surefire way to fail in getting what you want-and that is what he did.

If he actually wanted to negotiate, he would have put forth the Rand Paul bill and then let the Democrats come to him, rather than this junk. In fact, he is doing the opposite of negotiation, he his trying to ram it down the throats of Conservatives-again he is a RINO.

Edited March 15, 2017 by yjacket

[anatess2]

13 minutes ago, yjacket said:

You started off good in the OP, but then basically changed to defending Paul Ryan (don't know why you have a love affair with him).  Defending Paul Ryan who is defending this bill and then saying the bill is crap is hypocrisy.

The main point being that this bill is absolutely 100% representative of Paul Ryan's true feelings on health care-i.e. he is not a conservative. And if this is his idea of negotiating, he needs to go back to kindergarten Negotiation 101.  You never begin negotiations with what you think the other side will accept, you start of at the most extreme point possible and still have the other side talk.

He has failed that miserably, the Democrats don't want to talk about this bill (so he failed to talk with them) and a significant portion of his own party doesn't want to talk about it (so he failed with them).  Starting off negotiations at the "middle ground" is a surefire way to fail in getting what you want-and that is what he did.

If he actually wanted to negotiate, he would have put forth the Rand Paul bill and then let the Democrats come to him, rather than this junk. In fact, he is doing the opposite of negotiation, he his trying to ram it down the throats of Conservatives-again he is a RINO.

Sure, when you only look at the Reconciliation Bill you can conclude that.  When you add the 2 other pieces - the Administration effort and the non-Reconciliation legislation, it brings the entire picture together.  Tom Price IS HEALTHCARE.  That's why he is on that spot.  He was the author of that bill I was talking about in another thread that went nowhere in the Obama-era.  I trust Tom Price.  He was looped into the Ryan plan even before he got approved by the Senate.

I understand what Ryan is doing.  He is doing the process that has an easier route to passing.  Legislation that can't pass is useless regardless of how great it is.  He is going by the assumption that the Democrats are still united in the same manner that they are united in 2008.  There were enough Democrats that tried to reject the ACA to sink the ACA.  They all got arm-twisted to sign off on it.  There's no reason to think the Democrats will not twist-arms this time too. 

That's why I said I disagree with his decision to go the easier route that does not put the Healthcare solution under the mercy of Democrats.  But that doesn't make him a RINO.  I believe Trump in the White House completely changes the dynamics of the Democrats especially with the few Senators like Joe Manchin who has signaled their desire to stop obstructive partisanship.  Ryan has no faith in Trump's ability to swing Democrats to the Republican side.  He still thinks Trump is going to get Republicans to swing to the Democrat side instead.  In any case, this is not Ryan's only work.  He has a long record in Congress that establishes his credentials.  I also followed the Gingrich-Ryan press conferences.  I am a fan of Gingrich.  There is nothing RINO about Gingrich.  Those press conferences did a great job of explaining how Gingrich - in the days of Clinton - and now Ryan in the days of Obama - were able to accomplish pushing the conservative agenda in a hostile White House through the crafty navigation of Congressional Process.  Gingrich is one of Ryan's advisors.  They both explained how Congress has been broken for most of WBush's administration and all of Obama's administration including the time when Boehner was speaker.  They also both explained what Ryan is doing to bring Congress back to working order.   Gingrich, especially praised Ryan's commitment to providing a healthy Congressional environment that is the foundation to moving a conservative agenda forward.  In addition, although the Freedom Caucus tried to push Webster to replace Boehner, when it came time to sink Ryan, they didn't.  They voted for him instead - including Jim Jordan.  Jim Jordan is not the kind of guy that would vote for a RINO for speakership.

In any case, this bill is not the Healthcare Solution.  It is only 1 part of it.  Yes, I want this bill to fail if the 3rd part is not voted on at the same time.  We don't even know what's in the 3rd part yet.  So yes, the Rand Paul bill is a better bill as a Healthcare Solution because we know what's all in it.  This bill requires Democrats to support it for it to pass Congress.  If it doesn't pass, then Ryan's bill is a better bill.  Because a good bill that does not pass is useless, so a bill that repeals part of obamacare is better because it passes.  But, like I said, Ryan has no faith in Trump and that's a hurdle he has to overcome.

[yjacket]

12 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

 

On Paul Ryan and Tom Price being conservatives . . .let's talk in a couple of years.  

Just like how I love people claim Ryan is a conservative yet how many monster budgets has he pushed?  

The more things change, the more things stay the same.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, yjacket said:

  The more things change, the more things stay the same.

"Welcome to the new boss. Same as the old boss."-The Who, ironically titled "Won't Get Fooled Again." 

[yjacket]

5 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

"Welcome to the new boss. Same as the old boss."-The Who, ironically titled "Won't Get Fooled Again." 

I generally think Trump is outside the box (the only reason I voted for him), but the rest can go pound sand.

And oh looky here anatess

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/15/trump-helped-write-obamacare-replacement-bill-speaker-ryan-says.html

You're buddy Ryan claims Trump wrote the bill. I love the politics of it.  Ryan wants to shove some piece of crap down everyone's throat, gets backlash, then shifts the blame to Trump. Yeah as if Trump wrote this bill . . .give me a break.  Trump for the most part has stayed out of the weeds, except to support Ryan, which is probably done more for internal politics.

Personally, I think if the truth be known, the Rs don't want to repeal Obamacare, they want to let it sink on it's own.

Edited March 15, 2017 by yjacket

[Guest MormonGator]

10 minutes ago, yjacket said:

I generally think Trump is outside the box (the only reason I voted for him),

Liar. You obviously voted for Jill Stein. 

(kidding, kidding!) 

[yjacket]

Just now, MormonGator said:

Liar. You obviously voted for Jill Stein. 

(kidding, kidding!) 

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, yjacket said:

On Paul Ryan and Tom Price being conservatives . . .let's talk in a couple of years.  

Just like how I love people claim Ryan is a conservative yet how many monster budgets has he pushed?  

The more things change, the more things stay the same.

Yes.  Let's see in a couple of years.

And on the budget.  Sigh.  You've been watching too much Hannity, haven't you?  "We need to shut down the government over Planned Parenthood!  You're RINO!".  Typical obstructionist claptrap.

Here.  This is a summary of Tim Price's first Budget that passed the House back in 2015 when Boehner was still speaker.  Which part of this is RINO?  http://www.vox.com/2015/3/26/8294673/house-budget

And here.  Go through all of this.  This is Ryan's vision when he became speaker.  Which part of this is RINO?  http://abetterway.speaker.gov/

But yeah.  It's pointless debating this.  We'll see in 2018 elections.  I'm just tired of Republicans and Democrats shooting their own people because they don't want to play the stupid game of obstructionist politics.

Edited March 15, 2017 by anatess2

[Mike]

20 hours ago, anatess2 said:

In any case, pushing for a market-based healthcare solution overall would drive costs down without doctors having to abide by a convoluted fee schedule dictated by government.  This paradigm would also creep into the cost of healthcare covered under Medicare and Medicaid.  The leverage of HSA would also creep into Medicare and Medicaid.

Hmmm. Consider me a potential proselyte because at the moment I don't believe a market-based healthcare system is a solution. I don't believe it will bring costs down. I especially don't believe it will make healthcare more affordable for those who need it the most. I don't see why I should consider healthcare as a commodity (like an iPhone as a particular Congressman analogizes) or even a service (in the way people compare it to typical services such as repairs) in the marketplace. 

[yjacket]

58 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Yes.  Let's see in a couple of years.

And on the budget.  Sigh.  You've been watching too much Hannity, haven't you?  "We need to shut down the government over Planned Parenthood!  You're RINO!".  Typical obstructionist claptrap.

Here.  This is a summary of Tim Price's first Budget that passed the House back in 2015 when Boehner was still speaker.  Which part of this is RINO?  http://www.vox.com/2015/3/26/8294673/house-budget

And here.  Go through all of this.  This is Ryan's vision when he became speaker.  Which part of this is RINO?  http://abetterway.speaker.gov/

But yeah.  It's pointless debating this.  We'll see in 2018 elections.  I'm just tired of Republicans and Democrats shooting their own people because they don't want to play the stupid game of obstructionist politics.

Lol . . .oh please balance the budget in 10 years.  Come on anatess, you are smarter than that. A Congress only sits for two years and one Congress cannot bind another Congress, i.e. the 115th Congress can't pass a law that says the 116th Congress can't do xyz.  All that's needed to revoke the 115th Congress's decree is (here it is again) a majority in the House and Senate (again you only need 50 votes to pass in the Senate not 60). 

Paul Ryan and Tom Price knows, unequivocally that a balance budget in 10 years will never happen.  You either balance it in the current Congress or you don't, there is no other choice.  

This is probably my biggest beef with most so-called Conservatives. They like to talk the talk, but they never walk the walk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States

"Conservatives" like to think that hey we are for a bill that passes the budget in 10 years . . . that means we are for less government.  Or they say we cut 10billion from the deficit look at how fisically responsible we are.  They are in general a bunch of hypocrites, they are democrate-lite.

I dare you anatess, please name one thing that Congress has done when the Rs were in power over the last 20 years that actually, reduced government?

But b/c Paul Ryan has an R by his name everyone crows about how "conservative" he is.  If he had a D but his name he would be a right center D and everyone would hate him.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/

Paul Ryan 58% and their index is solely based on whether votes align with the Constitution or not.  So much for "conservative" Ryan. Rand Paul-93%.  Big, big difference. One actually fights for the Constitution and limited government, the other only gives lip service to it.

I don't care what Paul Ryan says (as he like to talk the talk), but what he does belies where his true allegiance lies.

And no I don't watch Hannity, I can't stand him-he is pretty phony too on actual limited government-but he is better than most.

Edited March 15, 2017 by yjacket

[anatess2]

36 minutes ago, Mike said:

Hmmm. Consider me a potential proselyte because at the moment I don't believe a market-based healthcare system is a solution. I don't believe it will bring costs down. I especially don't believe it will make healthcare more affordable for those who need it the most. I don't see why I should consider healthcare as a commodity (like an iPhone as a particular Congressman analogizes) or even a service (in the way people compare it to typical services such as repairs) in the marketplace. 

Why not?  What is different between Healthcare and... say... Food?

[yjacket]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

But yeah.  It's pointless debating this.  We'll see in 2018 elections.  I'm just tired of Republicans and Democrats shooting their own people because they don't want to play the stupid game of obstructionist politics.

It's not obstructionist politics, it's about understanding the true nature of our government. Philosophically the parties (R/D) exist for only one reason, to get their people elected to office.  If you are a liberal and run as an R and play well with the party bosses, then they will support you. Once you understand that someone who is an R does not a conservative make and someone who is a D does not a liberal make you can finally begin to understand the problem.

As a wise man once told someone running for office, which party should he run in the response was "Run in the party you can win it", i.e. it's less about what your policies are vs. which party you are in.

So you darn right I will shot those in the R party who are leading the charge claiming to be "conservative" yet at the same time shoving down ObamaCare lite.  Yeah, I'm ticked at it and I hope they lose their seats over it. But I doubt that will happen b/c elections are more like team sports.  People root for their team regardless of whether their team actually ideologically represents them. 

Again people are so blinded by whether a congresscritter has an R or D by his name that they don't actually take the time to actually find out if the reps ideology matches with their own.

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, yjacket said:

It's not obstructionist politics, it's about understanding the true nature of our government. Philosophically the parties (R/D) exist for only one reason, to get their people elected to office.  If you are a liberal and run as an R and play well with the party bosses, then they will support you. Once you understand that someone who is an R does not a conservative make and someone who is a D does not a liberal make you can finally begin to understand the problem.

 

Forum, listen carefully: 

The fact that @yjacket and I are agreeing on so much lately is a sign that armageddon is near. Run to church this weekend people. Run run run. 

Politicians, no matter who they are, what they believe, if you share a religion, or if you think the are nice and cuddly people exist for one reason: To get elected. Period. Even my favorites (Rand Paul, um...Rand Paul...and um...Rand Paul) and your favorites are to some degree in this boat. 

Edited March 15, 2017 by MormonGator

[anatess2]

45 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Lol . . .oh please balance the budget in 10 years.  Come on anatess, you are smarter than that. A Congress only sits for two years and one Congress cannot bind another Congress, i.e. the 115th Congress can't pass a law that says the 116th Congress can't do xyz.  All that's needed to revoke the 115th Congress's decree is (here it is again) a majority in the House and Senate (again you only need 50 votes to pass in the Senate not 60). 

Paul Ryan and Tom Price knows, unequivocally that a balance budget in 10 years will never happen.  You either balance it in the current Congress or you don't, there is no other choice.  

This is probably my biggest beef with most so-called Conservatives. They like to talk the talk, but they never walk the walk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States

"Conservatives" like to think that hey we are for a bill that passes the budget in 10 years . . . that means we are for less government.  Or they say we cut 10billion from the deficit look at how fisically responsible we are.  They are in general a bunch of hypocrites, they are democrate-lite.

I dare you anatess, please name one thing that Congress has done when the Rs were in power over the last 20 years that actually, reduced government?

But b/c Paul Ryan has an R by his name everyone crows about how "conservative" he is.  If he had a D but his name he would be a right center D and everyone would hate him.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/

Paul Ryan 58% and their index is solely based on whether votes align with the Constitution or not.  So much for "conservative" Ryan. Rand Paul-93%.  Big, big difference. One actually fights for the Constitution and limited government, the other only gives lip service to it.

I don't care what Paul Ryan says (as he like to talk the talk), but what he does belies where his true allegiance lies.

And no I don't watch Hannity, I can't stand him-he is pretty phony too on actual limited government-but he is better than most.

Okay, let me explain to you why a 2-year balanced budget is not possible from 2008 through to today.  I will posit it with this - I am opposed to a Congressional-Session Balanced Budget.

I will give you a real life example.  Scott Walker.  Governor of Wisconsin.  Interestingly, the same state that Paul Ryan district is in.  Wisconsin is one of those states that has a yearly Balanced Budget Law.  In 2008, the market crashed.  Wisconsin had nothing to do with it.  Not the governor of Wisconsin nor the Wisconsin Congress had anything to do with it.  Now, because of the Balanced Budget Law, Wisconsin HAD TO cut their budget into starvation mode because they did not have enough emergency funds to cover the drastic market change.  This hurt everything from Medicaid to Education to Infrastructure... Everything.  This is completely unnecessary when there has never been a time when a depression stays depressed forever.  Now, let's go to California.  Mr. I'll Be Back Ahnold passed the yearly balanced budget laws in 2004.  2004 was a high market time.  California was in a budget crisis from all their crazy spending even during the hey-days of the Clinton years.  Ahnold's balanced budget laws stopped the red-line spending and reduced their debts.  But guess what, it didn't stop California from spending themselves into bankruptcy because their stabilization funding (budget saved for the rainy day) was still used by government for crap stuff even with Ahnold trying to reign in a Democrat Congress so that 2008 further sunk California and even today they still didn't recover.

Now, Newt Gingrich headed the House in 1997.  He set a goal of a Balanced Budget within 5 years.  That's beyond a Congressional Session.  Now, this was a good thing because 1997 through 2002 (even through the tech bubble) is a robust economy with high revenues.  A robust economy supported Clinton for all of his Presidency even before Gingrich.  Gingrich BALANCED it... on a High Revenue era.  He didn't SURPLUS it that would have prepared the government for the World Trade Center and the Housing Crisis.

So, a Congressional-Session Balanced Budget in the post 2008 economy is another one of those Republican things that are simply political whining that means nothing.  Spend-Money-Wisely-Budget is a much more superior goal.

Edited March 15, 2017 by anatess2

[Mike]

23 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Why not?  What is different between Healthcare and... say... Food?

Food is to hunger as healthcare is to bad health. Everyone hungers. Not everyone has bad health. Everyone needs to eat and will buy food to satisfy their hunger. But not everyone is sick or injured, and doesn't need to buy healthcare. 

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, Mike said:

Food is to hunger as healthcare is to bad health. Everyone hungers. Not everyone has bad health. Everyone needs to eat and will buy food to satisfy their hunger. But not everyone is sick or injured, and doesn't need to buy healthcare. 

That doesn't make sense.  Everyone needs healthcare - whether it be cancer treatment or a band-aid for a papercut.  But in any case, how does that make Food work in a market-based paradigm but healthcare doesn't?  Are you trying to equate healthcare with... say... a fire department?

[Mike]

11 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

That doesn't make sense.  Everyone needs healthcare - whether it be cancer treatment or a band-aid for a papercut.  But in any case, how does that make Food work in a market-based paradigm but healthcare doesn't?  Are you trying to equate healthcare with... say... a fire department?

No, I'm not trying to equate healthcare with a fire department. You compared it to food, and I told you why I think your comparison isn't apt.  I'm inviting you (as I said at the outset) to convince me that a market-based system will (a) reduce costs; and (b) provide healthcare to those who need it most and can least afford it.

I think you are trivializing healthcare when you draw between two extremes like cancer and a paper cut--and certainly comparing the respective treatments doesn't address the issue.  Not everyone needs healthcare, and those who need it don't need it every day of their lives (as everybody needs food) nor to the same extent.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Mike

[anatess2]

57 minutes ago, yjacket said:

I dare you anatess, please name one thing that Congress has done when the Rs were in power over the last 20 years that actually, reduced government?

But b/c Paul Ryan has an R by his name everyone crows about how "conservative" he is.  If he had a D but his name he would be a right center D and everyone would hate him.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/

Paul Ryan 58% and their index is solely based on whether votes align with the Constitution or not.  So much for "conservative" Ryan. Rand Paul-93%.  Big, big difference. One actually fights for the Constitution and limited government, the other only gives lip service to it.

I don't care what Paul Ryan says (as he like to talk the talk), but what he does belies where his true allegiance lies.

And no I don't watch Hannity, I can't stand him-he is pretty phony too on actual limited government-but he is better than most.

The last 20 years... Nothing much.  You were under a Democrat Congress for most of it and you were under WBush, who takes after a "Read My Lips" Republican, and the Obamacare-Obama-phone-Obama for the rest.

Gingrich reigned in Clinton spending to balance the budget by 2002.  That's the early years of 20 years ago.  His contract with America was pretty good with limiting the government.

The biggest Republican lie - we are for small government.

I'm not a fan of the Republicans.  I'm a fan of Trump because he is smashing the establishment Republicans.  There are good Republicans.  Just like there are good Democrats.  Paul Ryan and Joe Manchin are 1 of each.  Jeff Sessions, Trey Gowdy, Jim Jordan, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz... all good Republicans.  There are also lots of bad Republicans with John McCain as their poster child.  Marco Rubio is a bad Republican not because he has bad ideology but because he indebted himself to bad politicians.  I'm not a fan of the Bush's.  I was ok with Romney until he went NeverTrump and tried to screw with the primary process and then tried to screw the general with McMullen.  That made me question his integrity.  There are also lots of bad Democrats - Pelosi leads that pack.

Edited March 15, 2017 by anatess2

[JohnsonJones]

41 minutes ago, yjacket said:

It's not obstructionist politics, it's about understanding the true nature of our government. Philosophically the parties (R/D) exist for only one reason, to get their people elected to office.  If you are a liberal and run as an R and play well with the party bosses, then they will support you. Once you understand that someone who is an R does not a conservative make and someone who is a D does not a liberal make you can finally begin to understand the problem.

As a wise man once told someone running for office, which party should he run in the response was "Run in the party you can win it", i.e. it's less about what your policies are vs. which party you are in.

So you darn right I will shot those in the R party who are leading the charge claiming to be "conservative" yet at the same time shoving down ObamaCare lite.  Yeah, I'm ticked at it and I hope they lose their seats over it. But I doubt that will happen b/c elections are more like team sports.  People root for their team regardless of whether their team actually ideologically represents them. 

Again people are so blinded by whether a congresscritter has an R or D by his name that they don't actually take the time to actually find out if the reps ideology matches with their own.

This is true in many ways.  One of the big ironies I have seen is Utah.  Utah is one of the reddest (most republican) states in the US.  It can be counted to vote republican, even when they hate the candidate.  When visiting Utah you would think that it would, therefore, be very republican and conservative in it's laws.  Not so.  If I had to judge a state by it's laws, Utah is one of the most liberal states in the Union.  It's laws are second to none in many areas that would seem an anathema to Republicans, so much that I've only seen states further to the left in California and Oregon on many of the issues Utah has. 

Utah has laws that may be on the religious right (so, very harsh against adult bars and stores, abortion, and other aspects), but economically and socially they tend to be very hard left (so yes, you have to get that car tested for it's exhaust in a more stringent test than most other states, yes, you'll have income taxes that are perhaps higher than elsewhere, and yes, you'll feel like you're living in an HOA even though you aren't because their city laws recreate an HOA within the city itself...which is insanely crazy).

Utah is a very weird place in that light, so I'd say that could actually support your claim in an odd way.

Edited March 15, 2017 by JohnsonJones
grammar

[anatess2]

34 minutes ago, Mike said:

No, I'm not trying to equate healthcare with a fire department. You compared it to food, and I told you why I think your comparison isn't apt.  I'm inviting you (as I said at the outset) to convince me that a market-based system will (a) reduce costs; and (b) provide healthcare to those who need it most and can least afford it.

I think you are trivializing healthcare when you draw between two extremes like cancer and a paper cut--and certainly comparing the respective treatments doesn't address the issue.  Not everyone needs healthcare, and those who need it don't need it every day of their lives (as everybody needs food) nor to the same extent.

Mike... EVERYTHING is better in a market-based system.  That is why China, even as they are Socialists, released their Economy to Capitalistic forces instead of going all Communist like Russia.

1.)  Reduce Cost - this is simple.  You have lemonade stand A fighting with lemonade stand B over customers.  2 things will happen, the quality of lemonades will increase and the cost of lemonades will remain low because the lemonade stand that provides low quality at a higher price will go bankrupt.

2.)  Provide care to those who need it most and can least afford it - when the cost of lemonades go down while the quality goes up, more people will be able to afford it even the poor folks.  At the same time, lemonade stand C can come in and undercut the lemonade stand business by providing super low cost even if it is not very good quality because some people don't mind the low quality as long as they can buy lemonade for a nickel that is sufficient to quench their thirst.

But, but, but... what about those who can't even afford a nickel for lemonade?  If a person is THAT poor, he goes on State-funded Medicaid.

 

Now... let's see what happens when the government pays for the healthcare.  Lemonade stand A and lemonade stand B won't have to worry about cost because the government pays for it.  So lemonade stand A and B both say, we want 5 dollars for a cup of lemonade because the government can print money.  So the government pays $5 and lemonade stands A and B provides decent lemonade and people keep coming because people don't care how much anything costs.  Then the lemonade stands want to pocket more money, so they start making not as decent lemonade.  The government is still paying $5 anyway and people still keep coming because they're still not paying anything.   But, the government has a budget - they decide, we're going to cut budget.  So, the government tells both lemonade stands - I'm only giving you a nickel for lemonade.  So, lemonade stand A and B lowers their quality so they can survive with a nickel for lemonade or go bankrupt.  People still keep coming because... what other choice do they have?  As you can see, the lemonade stands don't have any incentive to provide good quality for a lower price because they don't have to compete against each other for anything, money still keep coming and so are the customers.

 

P.S.  cancer treatment and band-aids is not trivializing healthcare.  That's the wide RANGE of healthcare services.  I guess we have a different understanding of the word healthCARE?

Edited March 15, 2017 by anatess2

[Mike]

@anatess2 I didn't ask you to explain about EVERYTHING. And you still haven't given me anything to go on with healthcare. You've told me about lemonade, and you've decried government involvement. But healthcare isn't like food and nothing like lemonade; and market-based means no government involvement, or am I wrong?

Educate me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that no country in the world has a market-based healthcare system. The closest thing we have is healthcare insurance, and experience has been that the market hasn't reduced the costs of insurance. I'm left wondering why the market can't seem to become interested in getting into the business of healthcare the way I perceive market-based advocates seem to preach.