(07-20-2017, 08:03 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: The robbed bit isn't egocentrical. When someone says "oh, by the way, you don't want or need this, but give me your money anyway or I am throwing you in jail" that is most certainly robbery.
By that standard you would have to call taxes robbery as well. Which maybe you do :) but I wouldn't go that far.
(07-20-2017, 08:03 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: They throw around the 20m people who got health insurance because of it number, but note there's never any research done on how many of that 20m *DIDN'T WANT IT*.
Or how many people who already had health insurance are now finding their deductibles and premiums skyrocketing to the point where sure they technically have insurance on paper, but now they can no longer afford to use it. My parents are pretty much in that group. It's shit to see because they have worked hard for it only to have it essentially snatched away to give to people who didn't work hard for it under the guise of a better world, and they are middle class at best.
I get skyrocketing premiums and why that is a shame, but if any the penalties would to some extent cap that effect. Or maybe I get that wrong. But in my view, if only people needing it would have insurance, premiums would be bound to be even higher, otherwise it wouldn't be profitable for insurers. Forcing those who feel they don't need insurance into the system benefits those in need.
Apart from that, I would have to ask how people like your parents would have less costly insurance if there weren't Obamacare. What would keep their premiums down? (There might be a clear answer, but I wouldn't know. Was there considerably more competition and market pressure before Obamacare?)
So, sure, unaffordable premiums need to be fixed, and I guess no one argues that. I think one could address that problem with a public option. Seems to make sense. But I'm very naive sometimes. I would even argue that the ubiquitous profit motive in healthcare is the root of most problems. Clearly I'm not a Libertarian.
(07-20-2017, 08:03 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: That's the one thing. The other, I don't really grasp who they are giving it to.
Meanwhile my friends who were already working 2 jobs in order to pay their bills and student loans, are getting $695 taken away from them just so they can opt out of something they neither wanted nor needed.
Might sound a bit curmudgeon-y, but shit medically was a LOT better from my perspective a decade ago.
Yeah, I see a deeper economical problem there. Which would be the student loans and that one job doesn't pay well enough to get along. I see a bit of irony complaining about the health care bill there and not foremost about those other things. Doesn't mean I ridicule the situation.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
(07-20-2017, 08:03 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: As for Sanders, his plan was never a good one. I think I read it would have meant like 20% of everyone's income would go towards paying for what he proposed.
Yeah, I wouldn't know, too much detail. If it were 20%, it wouldn't be a good plan. We really insure everybody and pay I think around 8% income overall (including what the employer pays, which is half of that I guess - a divide which, of course, is meaningless in the end).
(07-20-2017, 08:03 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: The robbed bit isn't egocentrical. When someone says "oh, by the way, you don't want or need this, but give me your money anyway or I am throwing you in jail" that is most certainly robbery.
They throw around the 20m people who got health insurance because of it number, but note there's never any research done on how many of that 20m *DIDN'T WANT IT*. Or how many people who already had health insurance are now finding their deductibles and premiums skyrocketing to the point where sure they technically have insurance on paper, but now they can no longer afford to use it. My parents are pretty much in that group. It's shit to see because they have worked hard for it only to have it essentially snatched away to give to people who didn't work hard for it under the guise of a better world, and they are middle class at best.
Meanwhile my friends who were already working 2 jobs in order to pay their bills and student loans, are getting $695 taken away from them just so they can opt out of something they neither wanted nor needed.
Might sound a bit curmudgeon-y, but shit medically was a LOT better from my perspective a decade ago. was
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
As for Sanders, his plan was never a good one. I think I read it would have meant like 20% of everyone's income would go towards paying for what he proposed.
Lenny, you bring up some interesting points. I started another thread on here about Obama care and whats all the negativity connected with it, but no one replied to it. Maybe most people are not really sure. Wish there was a unbiased summery of this plan listing all the pro's and cons. One thing I do know is the rightwing conservative congress has been bellyaching for seven years about Obama care (repel and replace) but when the ball is in their court they don't have anything better to offer.
You hate Obama care because of the hardship to your parents. Understandable.
I don't have a feeling one way or another as it doesn't effect me much. My insurance Premiums did go up but I figured it would of done this any way. Is this why Trump got elected because he said he was going to get rid of it? Guess he lied too.
(07-20-2017, 08:47 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Lenny, you bring up some interesting points. I started another thread on here about Obama care and whats all the negativity connected with it, but no one replied to it. Maybe most people are not really sure. Wish there was a unbiased summery of this plan listing all the pro's and cons. One thing I do know is the rightwing conservative congress has been bellyaching for seven years about Obama care (repel and replace) but when the ball is in their court they don't have anything better to offer.
You hate Obama care because of the hardship to your parents. Understandable.
I don't have a feeling one way or another as it doesn't effect me much. My insurance Premiums did go up but I figured it would of done this any way. Is this why Trump got elected because he said he was going to get rid of it? Guess he lied too.
Yeah, they pretty much shit the bed on that. Pretty sad they didn't have anything prepared... maybe they were caught off guard by Trump winning as much as most were.
I don't think it's the primary reason, but I can't say for certain. I voted Johnson. (Though I would have probably voted Kasich if he made it past the primaries.)
(07-20-2017, 08:42 PM)hollodero Wrote: I get skyrocketing premiums and why that is a shame, but if any the penalties would to some extent cap that effect. Or maybe I get that wrong. But in my view, if only people needing it would have insurance, premiums would be bound to be even higher, otherwise it wouldn't be profitable for insurers. Forcing those who feel they don't need insurance into the system benefits those in need.
Apart from that, I would have to ask how people like your parents would have less costly insurance if there weren't Obamacare. What would keep their premiums down? (There might be a clear answer, but I wouldn't know. Was there considerably more competition and market pressure before Obamacare?)
In the good old days sick people couldnt get health insurance. And if you had coverage and got sick health insurance companies would drop you. If they were nice enough to keep you on there was usually a lifetime limit.
It was the perfect system. Mostly healthy people paying in while premiums kept rising.
That was also back when there were more decent companies out there that had reasonable health care for their employees.
(07-20-2017, 05:52 PM)hollodero Wrote: Hmmm... that's the American take. I mean nothing by that, just saying. Americans sure seem to think in more individual terms.
Health care is complicated, sure. Social values (in lack of a better word) play some role in it. In Europe, we grew up with something like a contract of the generations, and young people pretty much accept that social standards demand certain expenses, even when they might not be the beneficiaries of said spending they have to contribute to. But then again, everyone has parents, friends who don't do well... etc. A society being taken care of in terms of health does, in my experience, work a bit better and more friction-free. Feeling "robbed", to me, sounds a bit egocentrical. If everyone pays a certain fraction of his salary, no one will go bancrupt because of health insurance. But it sure is a solidarity concept, and not to be cute but that thought doesn't seem popular in the US. But the result you get out of this way of thinking doesn't look particularly compelling for a society as a whole. From the outside, that is.
Plus, accidents can happen quickly. I guess I'm still on the spending side of things overall, but when I cut a nerve in my hand, I sure was glad that I was covered. Being healthy can change suddenly for everyone, no matter how young and vital one feels.
Single payer seems like a viable option, or "Medicaid for all", and Sanders is quite right in saying that every wealthy nation except the US does offer similar services to their citizens. I understand that's a tough sell in the US, so OK. But a public option would be a distinct possibility to cap raising premiums.
But be that as it may - there are certainly more options than just full repeal or letting Obamacare fail. I insist on you being a bit too hasty with your judgment there :)
I've been thinking about this a lot lately. And most civilized countries (and even some uncivilized countries) have some form of single payer system in place. Americans love to be first in everything. It has become increasingly clear to me that we are not first in healthcare, not even in the top ten! I know when a lot of Americans are presented with anything slightly resembling anything European when it comes to healthcare, they scream SOCIALISM!!!!!....AHHHHHH! Look I'm proud to be an American, I served in our Navy, at times I even like our swagger. But there are things that frustrate me about Americans though. And one of them is the insistence that because it wasn't "our" idea then it's not good for us. Especially when we are founded on the notion of basic rights. IMO healthcare should be one of those rights and not bankrupt you in the process. IMO we should literally be looking at who has had the most success with it and copy it. There has to be some sort of solution though, what we're seeing now is ridiculous.
On a side note I read something recently that I thought was interesting. It was an article quoting Warren Buffet (the liberal billionare) and he was saying that the single payer system would be good for Americans because it would lessen the burden on companies to provide insurance for employees, his republican/conservative partner agreed. It was interesting to me because I hadn't thought of it from that angle before. Any who just my two pennies on the situation.
(07-21-2017, 02:27 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I've been thinking about this a lot lately. And most civilized countries (and even some uncivilized countries) have some form of single payer system in place. Americans love to be first in everything. It has become increasingly clear to me that we are not first in healthcare, not even in the top ten! I know when a lot of Americans are presented with anything slightly resembling anything European when it comes to healthcare, they scream SOCIALISM!!!!!....AHHHHHH! Look I'm proud to be an American, I served in our Navy, at times I even like our swagger. But there are things that frustrate me about Americans though. And one of them is the insistence that because it wasn't "our" idea then it's not good for us. Especially when we are founded on the notion of basic rights. IMO healthcare should be one of those rights and not bankrupt you in the process. IMO we should literally be looking at who has had the most success with it and copy it. There has to be some sort of solution though, what we're seeing now is ridiculous.
On a side note I read something recently that I thought was interesting. It was an article quoting Warren Buffet (the liberal billionare) and he was saying that the single payer system would be good for Americans because it would lessen the burden on companies to provide insurance for employees, his republican/conservative partner agreed. It was interesting to me because I hadn't thought of it from that angle before. Any who just my two pennies on the situation.
Agree Rich. We are by far the richest country in the world. All Americans should have access to free or inexpensive health care. We don't need to keep dumping billion of dollars into a military thats ten times stronger than any other. Bernie had some extreme views on some things but two of his beliefs I agree with , Free healhcare and the income inequality that is making the middle class disappear. The regular Joe's of this country have to stop letting the top one per cent use us and control were our tax dollars go.
What is the Republicans main talking point? Isn't it about entitlements? Get as many middle class voters fired up as they can when they see that person at the grocery store paying for a big order with food stamps or the black woman with five kids getting welfare checks. This is the elephant in the room. No doubt these entitlements need tweaked and distributed more prudently. The Republicans health care plan called for a 880 billion taken away from medicare and be given to the rich in the form of tax cuts. Is this watching out for the MC (middle class)? Why do so many MC voters fall for this bullshit? stupidity, indifference, laziness? Trickle down economics, yeah right. It appears a lot of people like to be led around like lemmings.
Am I missing something here?
(07-20-2017, 08:47 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Is this why Trump got elected because he said he was going to get rid of it? Guess he lied too.
Did Obama lie when he said you could keep the insurance policy you have, and that you can keep the doctor you have?
Or was he mega misinformed like most liberals?
Did Trump really lie? No, his intent was to repeal....until he discovered that it wasn't going to be as easy as him saying "you're fired".
I'll give you that he failed in his attempt, but he certainly didn't lie.
(07-21-2017, 06:28 AM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Am I missing something here?
A lot.
Recall this idiot suggesting that the stupidity of the voter and keeping the Obamacare bill the least transparent as possible contributed to its passage?
You were warned it would eventually implode on itself but you didn't listen.
So now we have a disaster of a healthcare bill only because 30 to 40 million were uninsured. Prior to its passage Republicans put alternatives on the table that were rejected by democrats. There is never compromise with dems, its their way or the highway.
It is NOW, NOT BEFORE OBAMACARE that Americans are bitching about their healthcare plans...high cost of premiums and the deductions that they cant even afford.
Get it???
Proof again that democrats never solve anything, they only create more problems.
(07-21-2017, 11:46 AM)Vlad Wrote: It is NOW, NOT BEFORE Obamacare that Americans are bitching about their healthcare plans...high cost of premiums and the deductions that they cant even afford.
Get it???
There was actually plenty of bitching about health insurance plans pre-ACA. It's one of the reasons the ACA happened, one of the reasons the Heritage Foundation came up with the framework for the ACA in the 70s. Healthcare costs, including insurance premiums and deductibles, were on the rise long before Obama took office, even. I get that memories are often short when it comes to these sorts of things, so I will chalk your erroneous claim up to that rather than partisanship.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(07-21-2017, 11:22 AM)Vlad Wrote: Did Trump really lie? No, his intent was to repeal....until he discovered that it wasn't going to be as easy as him saying "you're fired".
I'll give you that he failed in his attempt, but he certainly didn't lie.
Certainly! Trump said his healthcare plan, that no one but him could implement, would be so terrific, so much better than Obamacare, would cover everybody, for a fraction of the cost. No cuts to Medicare. He "guaranteed" pre-existing conditions would be covered. Oh yes, and it's gonna be so easy. Believe me.
What was cooked up is about the opposite of these promises. A bill Trump himself called mean. That was what "only he can do", except he could not. But that result constitutes a lie. It's like promising to cut income tax, then immediately trying to raise it, while people like you would say "oh what a great man, he said he would do something with income tax and he delivered."
(07-21-2017, 11:22 AM)Vlad Wrote: Did Obama lie when he said you could keep the insurance policy you have, and that you can keep the doctor you have?
Or was he mega misinformed like most liberals?
Did Trump really lie? No, his intent was to repeal....until he discovered that it wasn't going to be as easy as him saying "you're fired".
I'll give you that he failed in his attempt, but he certainly didn't lie.
Yes, if at the time he new this wouldn't happen then he did lie. If his advisors told him this was true then he didn't lie, 9aside from the buck stops here argument).
As far as trump, yes he did lie just like he is on record lying 890 times. What were those adjectives he used to describe his plan,
tremendous, fabulous, great, fantastic? He didn't/doesn't have a clue.
(07-19-2017, 11:31 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: NATI BENGALS
1. Collude with Russia, alienate allies, and normalize foreign interference in our election.
2. Hype up stock market rally. Claim all responsibility even though no major legislation was passed. Because we all know when Wall Street bankers are rolling in the money lower and middle class Americans are the real beneficiaries.
3. Let the health care system fail. I personally cant think of a better way to MAGA than cheerfully watching and waiting for the health care of our citizens to fall apart.
4. Using the office of the President to make profits for the family business. Almost forgot this one. But we know Trump didnt. Peddling Ivankas goods, free "winter white house" advertising with the greatly increased membership fees, son in laws tech startup getting access to top tech CEOs, pentagon payments directly to Trump tower.. Im probably missing about 40-50. But you get the point.
Basically a foolproof plan to MAGA though right? I know i am missing some big ones.
I'm middle class and I'm benefiting from the surge in the market.
Do you realize how trivial your post is in relation to your own thread title? Even if all 4 of the situations you listed went your way, they together would have little or no impact toward MAGA.
GREAT AGAIN: President Trump Eliminates 860 Obama-Era Federal Regulations
Michelle Moons/Breitbart News
by Jerome Hudson21 Jul 2017868
21 Jul, 2017 21 Jul, 2017
President Donald Trump’s White House has, according to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Mick Mulvaney, removed or withdrawn about 860 Obama administration-era federal regulations.
The massive decrease in regulations is part of the Trump administration’s overall deregulatory agenda, Mulvaney said during a press briefing Thursday.
Updating reporters on President Trump’s 2-for-1 policy for federal regulations — which requires cutting two regulations for every one new implemented regulation — Mulvaney said we are at 16-to-1, Breitbart News’s Michelle Moons reports.
Speaking to the “slow accretion, that slow cancer that can come from regulatory burdens that we put on our people,” the OMB director said during the “last six months here, the Obama Administration put on over six billion dollars in new regulatory burden,” adding, “We had zero.” Mulvaney also unveiled a new economic plan for America called “MAGAnomics,” which, he said will tackle “tax reform, the regulatory accountability project (previously called the unified agenda), energy dominance, welfare reform, infrastructure, trade policies, trade, and spending restraint” in a way that will raise the economic growth rate to more than three percent. The Trump administration’s plan, Mulvaney said, is to continue to cut and decrease Americans’ regulatory burden in the coming years as a means to spur economic growth.
But you see liberal bozos and the media are too fixated on trying to get rid of Trump to be concerned with all the wonderful things Trump is doing to MAGA.
(07-22-2017, 12:05 AM)Vlad Wrote: I'm middle class and I'm benefiting from the surge in the market.
Do you realize how trivial your post is in relation to your own thread title? Even if all 4 of the situations you listed went your way, they together would have little or no impact toward MAGA.
GREAT AGAIN: President Trump Eliminates 860 Obama-Era Federal Regulations
Michelle Moons/Breitbart News
by Jerome Hudson21 Jul 2017868
21 Jul, 2017 21 Jul, 2017
President Donald Trump’s White House has, according to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Mick Mulvaney, removed or withdrawn about 860 Obama administration-era federal regulations.
The massive decrease in regulations is part of the Trump administration’s overall deregulatory agenda, Mulvaney said during a press briefing Thursday.
Updating reporters on President Trump’s 2-for-1 policy for federal regulations — which requires cutting two regulations for every one new implemented regulation — Mulvaney said we are at 16-to-1, Breitbart News’s Michelle Moons reports.
Speaking to the “slow accretion, that slow cancer that can come from regulatory burdens that we put on our people,” the OMB director said during the “last six months here, the Obama Administration put on over six billion dollars in new regulatory burden,” adding, “We had zero.” Mulvaney also unveiled a new economic plan for America called “MAGAnomics,” which, he said will tackle “tax reform, the regulatory accountability project (previously called the unified agenda), energy dominance, welfare reform, infrastructure, trade policies, trade, and spending restraint” in a way that will raise the economic growth rate to more than three percent. The Trump administration’s plan, Mulvaney said, is to continue to cut and decrease Americans’ regulatory burden in the coming years as a means to spur economic growth.
But you see liberal bozos and the media are too fixated on trying to get rid of Trump to be concerned with all the wonderful things Trump is doing to MAGA.
I'm curious, how is this "making America great again?" See, in public policy we assess things base don outcomes, realized value. Cutting regulations is a policy decision. What regulations are those? What do they do? Then we need to ask what the greater, more far reaching effect of those regulations are. A regulation being cut may reduce pollution prevention requirements or worker safety requirements. What outcomes do those have? Companies may be able to invest more money and make more earnings, but there is also an effect of more hazards to employees and more damage to the environment.
So a policy decision, like cutting regulations, is not simply an example of making American great, again, because it's not providing any sort of explanation as to how. Are these regulations purely redundant regulations and cutting them only impact the number of sheets being printed off? Does cutting them do more harm than good? What did these regulations do? Answer those questions and then use this as an example.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(07-22-2017, 07:25 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm curious, how is this "making America great again?" See, in public policy we assess things base don outcomes, realized value. Cutting regulations is a policy decision. What regulations are those? What do they do? Then we need to ask what the greater, more far reaching effect of those regulations are. A regulation being cut may reduce pollution prevention requirements or worker safety requirements. What outcomes do those have? Companies may be able to invest more money and make more earnings, but there is also an effect of more hazards to employees and more damage to the environment.
So a policy decision, like cutting regulations, is not simply an example of making American great, again, because it's not providing any sort of explanation as to how. Are these regulations purely redundant regulations and cutting them only impact the number of sheets being printed off? Does cutting them do more harm than good? What did these regulations do? Answer those questions and then use this as an example.
But it looks and sounds good...that's all Trump and his supporters care about.
Sane people saw that before the election. All hat and no horse as they liked to say in the past.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
Why did Obama implement all those regulations? Who was going to be hurt by the regulations? Who was going to profit by those regulations ?
Answer here:
Why did trump end all those regulations? Who was being hurt by those regulations? Who is going to get enriched by the ending of those regulations?
Answer here:
(07-22-2017, 09:07 AM)GMDino Wrote: But it looks and sounds good...that's all Trump and his supporters care about.
Sane people saw that before the election. All hat and no horse as they liked to say in the past.
It just goes back to the voters basing their decision on emotion and not policy.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(07-22-2017, 09:27 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It just goes back to the voters basing their decision on emotion and not policy.
And hat happens on both sides to a degree.
However one candidate actually understood policy and how things work (whether you agree with what she wanted to do or not) and the other is a figurehead.
Isn't there an old saying about how eventually one rises above their abilities and it shows?
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(07-22-2017, 09:27 AM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Why did Obama implement all those regulations? Who was going to be hurt by the regulations? Who was going to profit by those regulations ?
Answer here:
Why did trump end all those regulations? Who was being hurt by those regulations? Who is going to get enriched by the ending of those regulations?
Answer here:
The one that gets me was the first one that Trump said was "killing coal jobs". The one preventing mines from dumping in streams.
It was enacted in November of last year.
It didn't kill any jobs.
But it might have cost a mine a little bit of money in exchange of clean water in that area...so off it goes.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(07-22-2017, 09:07 AM)GMDino Wrote: But it looks and sounds good...that's all Trump and his supporters care about.
Sane people saw that before the election. All hat and no horse as they liked to say in the past.
Thank God people don't say it anymore because while I can infer it's meaning through context, I can't figure out what it's origin could possibly be.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(07-22-2017, 09:34 AM)GMDino Wrote: And hat happens on both sides to a degree.
However one candidate actually understood policy and how things work (whether you agree with what she wanted to do or not) and the other is a figurehead.
Isn't there an old saying about how eventually one rises above their abilities and it shows?
I don't disagree, but I just have to ask what percentage of Clinton voters do you think read any of her white papers? What percentage even know what a white paper is? Interestingly enough, even though I am the type of person that will read policy journals in my free time the way her campaign put those out was a turn off for me. I like to know that there is an understanding of policy and an idea of the direction they want to go. But successful presidents are the big idea types that don't let themselves get too much into the weeds on the details. FDR, for example, had his brain trust for a reason.
Now, between the two, I preferred Clinton (though I didn't vote for her). But what I want is a happy medium between these two. The interesting thing is, though, that if Trump actually understood government and policy he would be more like Clinton in this regard. He is a notorious micromanager. He's just out of his element and is ignorant of the way government functions.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: jamarr-chase.gif]](https://media.tenor.com/Ycw6u-nmw3AAAAAM/jamarr-chase.gif)
![[Image: MAGAnomics-Michelle-Moons-Breitbart-News-640x480.jpg]](http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/07/MAGAnomics-Michelle-Moons-Breitbart-News-640x480.jpg)
Michelle Moons/Breitbart News
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
