What's the point of all the protesting?

[Will Hunting]

Seriously, what are the bleeding hearts trying to accomplish?

Are they protesting the fact their beloved black vote & millennial vote didn't show up to the polls?

Maybe they're protesting their political party that rigged the primary for someone who had an open FBI investigation pending and in the process sabotaged a candidate who had no investigation and actually appealed to the working class white vote that Trump successfully related to and won?

Are they mad at rust belt voters for no longer supporting the political party that's rammed free trade agreements through Washington for the last 25 years?

I honestly don't get the point of rioting after a clean election that had an obvious winner.

[baseline bum]

Yeah that shit's hilarious seeing nothing but young people. The same people who didn't fucking show up to vote. :lol

I mean I'm pissed it went down this way, but fuck them for letting the Republicans come and sweep up control of the nation. I fucking voted to stop it but all these assholes want to do is cry about the result they could have prevented if they got off their fucking ass and went to the polls.

[Warlord23]

I think it's a mix of things. Some of these asshats genuinely believe they are in 1933 Germany and that Trump is planning to let loose a brownshirt army. Somebody ought to tell them that Trump just pulled an epic con job on the racist elements within the GOP, and he has no use for them anymore. Some are horrified that Trump will undo the Paris climate accords. This is probably going to happen, but any GOP president would have done this after taking donations from the fossil fuel companies - Trump is not unique in this regard. Others are worried about Trump's proposals on immigration, healthcare etc but again, Trump isn't going to follow through on the BS he spouted during the primaries.

Bottom line, it's an overreaction.

[baseline bum]

I think it's a mix of things. Some of these asshats genuinely believe they are in 1933 Germany and that Trump is planning to let loose a brownshirt army. Somebody ought to tell them that Trump just pulled an epic con job on the racist elements within the GOP, and he has no use for them anymore. Some are horrified that Trump will undo the Paris climate accords. This is probably going to happen, but any GOP president would have done this after taking donations from the fossil fuel companies - Trump is not unique in this regard. Others are worried about Trump's proposals on immigration, healthcare etc but again, Trump isn't going to follow through on the BS he spouted during the primaries.

Bottom line, it's an overreaction.

Trump is absolutely getting rid of Obamacare. Hopefully he at least uses his signature on the repeal bill as leverage to get his congress to ok his infrastructure plans.

[DarrinS]

A 20 year old college student was 12 when Obama became president. Now, thiey're in a a SJW "safe space" culture that infantilizes them and teaches them to throw tantrums if they get "triggered". These protests don't surprise me one bit.

If you have a meltdown over culturally appropriated Halloween costumes, then a Trump win probably seems like the end of the world.

[Clipper Nation]

These brats have never lost an election before, and they've been paid by George Soros to riot like the world is ending.

[DarrinS]

I agree that Trump is getting rid of Obamacare. But, who really wants to keep that POS?

[DarrinS]

Lol


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d9lm-T87AQ

[Will Hunting]

Maybe Obamacare gets watered down, but no fucking way it gets fully repealed (and I think it's a total POS, so it's not like that's a politically driven statement).

There are too many people who benefit from it at this point, there's no way the Republican party is going to simply repeal something that gives 20MM people healthcare.

[Warlord23]

Trump is absolutely getting rid of Obamacare. Hopefully he at least uses his signature on the repeal bill as leverage to get his congress to ok his infrastructure plans.

I'd guess that Trump will implement some of the fixes that the Dems wanted, loosen some of the regulations that prevented insurance firms from making even more profits, rename it Trumpcare and run with it. Repealing it right away will cause 20M people to lose coverage, and Trump has said that he will cover the poor via "something great"

[HarlemHeat37]

They're protesting because Facebook, Instagram and Twitter told them to, tbh:lol

[baseline bum]

Maybe Obamacare gets watered down, but no fucking way it gets fully repealed (and I think it's a total POS, so it's not like that's a politically driven statement).

There are too many people who benefit from it at this point, there's no way the Republican party is going to simply repeal something that gives 20MM people healthcare.

What he is saying about it makes little sense. He wants to eliminate the ability to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions but also eliminate the mandate. That's ridiculous, why would anyone buy insurance until they got sick then?

[DarrinS]

They could just let Obamacare die of natural causes, but it will take longer.

[baseline bum]

I'd guess that Trump will implement some of the fixes that the Dems wanted, loosen some of the regulations that prevented insurance firms from making even more profits, rename it Trumpcare and run with it. Repealing it right away will cause 20M people to lose coverage, and Trump has said that he will cover the poor via "something great"

I don't know what to believe from Trump, he changes positions weekly. His current position as of this minute is ridiculous.

[Will Hunting]

Yeah that shit's hilarious seeing nothing but young people. The same people who didn't fucking show up to vote. :lol

I mean I'm pissed it went down this way, but fuck them for letting the Republicans come and sweep up control of the nation. I fucking voted to stop it but all these assholes want to do is cry about the result they could have prevented if they got off their fucking ass and went to the polls.

The real protesting should be at the doorstep of the Democratic party, the Clintons and Debbie n!ggerman Schultz. I'm not happy the Republicans have an unchecked ability to cut taxes and ramp up defense spending now (I don't think Trump is going to cut taxes as much as he says he will though; it would be a fiscal disaster), but the reason why I'm overall happy is this election should be the death of the Clinton-controlled Democratic party that simply serves a different set of oligarchs than the Republicans do. These protesters should be a lot more outraged that the Democratic party abandoned the white working class 25 years ago simply because pushing globalization and becoming the party of wall street was an easy way win elections.

Trump also wins points in my book for this: he completely dismantled the Clinton AND Bush political dynasties in one fucking election cycle :lmao

[Will Hunting]

The fact that Paul Ryan came out and said "I've drafted a bill! It just needs Trump's signature!" is proof to me that nothing is coming on Obamacare for awhile.

The only purpose of Ryan's statement is so a year from now when Obamacare isn't repealed he can say "I had a bill, Don just didn't sign it! Blame him!"

[hater]

Some of d kids were just mad and venting im cool with it and trump is cool w it

The ones getting high and destrying property need to be sent to guantanamo

[rmt]

Repealing & Replacing Obamacare Will Be Harder Than It Looks:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2016/11/09/under-president-trump-repealing-replacing-obamacare-will-be-harder-than-it-looks/#4edee6247d24

[Axl Rose]

Wtf I love that movie now

sup brah you ready to MAGA

[Spurminator]

They should save their energy for the real travesties that are sure to come.

[Winehole23]

These brats have never lost an election before, and they've been paid by George Soros to riot like the world is ending.was similar in 2008. the world didn't end.

[Winehole23]

GOP threw a tantrum for 8 years saying Obama was going to wreck everything.

He didn't.

[Winehole23]

Trump may try, but he won't either.

[Winehole23]

The change candidate will fail again.

[Aztecfan03]

was similar in 2008. the world didn't end.

republicans were protestesting all over the nation and attacking people?

[AaronY]

People are just completely disgusted we could ever so so retarded as to elect someone like this tbh..it is extraordinarily humiliating. The international community was almost universally appalled. Gonna be annoying traveling overseas again next summer..might even try to fake an accent and tell people I'm a Brit honestly and thats not a joke at all

[Winehole23]

republicans were protestesting all over the nation and attacking people?they protested for eight years, calling the president a terrorist, a Muslim, a foreigner, a traitor, a crazed sociialist, hyping him as the proximate threat to everything near and dear and a destroyer of America.

they were wrong. the proof is the peaceful transfer of power to Trump, protesting soreheads totally notwithstanding.

[Winehole23]

when the right wing takes to the streets we'll see the difference. it won't be as pretty as what we see now.

[SnakeBoy]

when the right wing takes to the streets we'll see the difference. it won't be as pretty as what we see now.

That's ageist

https://liberalsbackwardsthink.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/tea-party-movement-extremists-ap.jpg

[SnakeBoy]

That's ageist

https://liberalsbackwardsthink.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/tea-party-movement-extremists-ap.jpg

They did pick up any trash before they went home though.

[Winehole23]

the right wing has the corner on civility.

right.

[SnakeBoy]

Didn't expect you to lose your shit over this election WH

[Winehole23]

I haven't. I find it exhilarating actually.

[Winehole23]

Trump winning is probably the best outcome for both sides.

[Th'Pusher]

Repealing & Replacing Obamacare Will Be Harder Than It Looks:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2016/11/09/under-president-trump-repealing-replacing-obamacare-will-be-harder-than-it-looks/#4edee6247d24


This was obvious before Tuesday tbh.

[SnakeBoy]

I haven't. I find it exhilarating actually.

Okay, I guess I read your intentions wrong.

So many people going batshit crazy.

[SnakeBoy]

Trump winning is probably the best outcome for both sides.

It's what I wanted...we'll see though. I wouldn't underestimate the ability of either party to really fuck up.

[Winehole23]

Neither would I.

[Nbadan]

it would take a Senate super majority to repel Obamacare....about the best the GOP could do is defund Obamacare.....but that would be to their own detriment because as someone already mentioned.....people paying for their own healthcare is not necessarily a bad thing

[Winehole23]

It wouldn't take a supermajority if the Senate changes the rules...it only takes a majority to to do that.

[Nbadan]

Changing the rules is not repel though WH....they might pass a health saving account plan that could change how the ACA works...look the plan needed to be 'fixed' anyway because not enough young people where signing up to make up for those with pre-existing conditions...that's the reason why costs for care where rising....

[Winehole23]

Trump is already making noises that he might go squishy on the repeal, but maybe you heard that already.

[Nbadan]

Of course, some provisions of the ACA are not bad, just the way they are being paid for....Trump knows he can't just repel the ACA....

[Winehole23]

No. That's up to Congress. Unless you're betting on a Trump veto...

[Nbadan]

I'm betting he doesn't have a super majority to repel....

[DMC]

Seriously, what are the bleeding hearts trying to accomplish?

Are they protesting the fact their beloved black vote & millennial vote didn't show up to the polls?

Maybe they're protesting their political party that rigged the primary for someone who had an open FBI investigation pending and in the process sabotaged a candidate who had no investigation and actually appealed to the working class white vote that Trump successfully related to and won?

Are they mad at rust belt voters for no longer supporting the political party that's rammed free trade agreements through Washington for the last 25 years?

I honestly don't get the point of rioting after a clean election that had an obvious winner.

I kept hearing "don't interfere with other people and how they express their own activism" by BLM leaders. I guess driving home from work doesn't qualify, because they all interfered with that, and only young pussy ass, skinny white skater kids with bats and courage masks qualify as activists.

[ElNono]

I agree that Trump is getting rid of Obamacare. But, who really wants to keep that POS?

I mean, I don't like Barrycare, but first tell what you're replacing it with, and what are you keeping from it (ie: pre-existing condition coverage, etc).

What was before it wasn't really "good" (and "good" here can mean a lot of things, including cost of care, access to care, etc) either.

rmt was kind enough to forward me a "plan" from the GOP Congress, but it has the usual problems: there's nothing in there about cost. That's really the elephant in the room.

I just don't really have expectations that will be addressed by any reform either unfortunately.

[DMC]

in the ME they had the Arab Spring.

In the US it's the Arab Spring Break. These fuckers are basically doing what they do on spring break.

[DMC]

I mean, I don't like Barrycare, but first tell what you're replacing it with, and what are you keeping from it (ie: pre-existing condition coverage, etc).

What was before it wasn't really "good" (and "good" here can mean a lot of things, including cost of care, access to care, etc) either.

rmt was kind enough to forward me a "plan" from the GOP Congress, but it has the usual problems: there's nothing in there about cost. That's really the elephant in the room.

I just don't really have expectations that will be addressed by any reform either unfortunately.

If the free market system is allowed to work as its supposed to with insurance and providers and pharma, things will regulate on their own. Someone is going to be willing to charge less to get your business. We don't seem to need the affordable car care act yet we are all required to be insured. There's no fundamental right to free medical care. If I'm a medical professional, I don't think you or anyone else has the innate right to my services for free. Even police officers don't have to work for free.

Socialism doesn't work, and components of socialism don't work on smaller scales. Social Security doesn't work, we all believe we won't get what we paid into it because too many hands in the cookie jar funding other social freebies in this and other countries. You want to stimulate economy? Let people decide how to invest their own social security money. That won't happen because the money is spent long before its collected, and you'll never get it back.

[Nbadan]

Social Security doesn't work

I don't see why not....in fact, social security has been so successful that it's even a big part of funded our economic growth for the last 20 years...

[HI-FI]

Some of these people are just losers acting like sore losers. That and Soros pays pretty well.

It's weird though, Shillary is a bigger warhawk than Trump and they still go crazy. Or this guy below, the corporations on his flag were all in the tank for crooked H.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/11/10/11/3A333EA000000578-3922098-Seattle_One_of_her_compatriots_wears_a_US_flag_emb lazoned_with_c-a-25_1478776851438.jpg

[Nbadan]

it's weird though, Shillary is a bigger warhawk than Trump and they still go crazy.

....This is somewhere where Trump can win..but Syria and Iraq are a mess....how long can he resist GOP interventionists?

[ElNono]

If the free market system is allowed to work as its supposed to with insurance and providers and pharma, things will regulate on their own. Someone is going to be willing to charge less to get your business. We don't seem to need the affordable car care act yet we are all required to be insured. There's no fundamental right to free medical care. If I'm a medical professional, I don't think you or anyone else has the innate right to my services for free. Even police officers don't have to work for free.

Socialism doesn't work, and components of socialism don't work on smaller scales. Social Security doesn't work, we all believe we won't get what we paid into it because too many hands in the cookie jar funding other social freebies in this and other countries. You want to stimulate economy? Let people decide how to invest their own social security money. That won't happen because the money is spent long before its collected, and you'll never get it back.

I've gone through this reasoning before, but let's do it again. I have nothing against the free market, but in certain areas, you simply have competing interests, and that's probably we should be talking about.

On any free market system, you'll always have profit motive over anything else. That's how the free market works. On the other hand, it's also arguable that government has a compelling interest in the good health and well being of their citizens in order to have a productive society (and the fact that it's political suicide not to care for your sick and elder). So there's the competing interest between fiduciary duty to your shareholders vs what's better for your customers/patients. On the real world free market, that's not really a choice, your shareholders always come first. You also have the unavoidable reality that in this "market" (aka society) you have all sorts of people, of all sorts of ages, that have all sorts of medical needs, and after certain age, an inability of to work and pay for that profit that needs to be made. It's not an even market, with even needs. It's already a distorted market due to age, epidemics, etc.

That's how we arrived to the previous system, where "free market" only really applied to the relatively healthy individuals (not too old, no pre-existing conditions, not disabled, etc), it tied a lot of the access to employment, and when it stopped being a good business (ie: people got old, were sick or disabled), they were dumped to the state to subsidize. When the actual need of care went up, and the cost went in hand with it, the "free market" decided it would have none of it. And obviously any sane government won't let the old, sick and disabled just die on the street (unless you're Ron Paul, I suppose, tbh). So we ended up with a very cozy arrangement between private companies/insurers covering relatively healthy people and government funneling whatever monies to take care of those that actually need care the most. And that's how we ended up being one of the countries where the cost of care per capita is one of the highest in the world, no matter if it's private or government paying for care and no matter the outcomes. Because "cost" never really entered the picture. It's so brazen that it's almost impossible to know full in advance how much any given procedure is going to cost you.

On competition specifically, I also have nothing against it and would welcome more competition, but this analysis has to be in context with reality: in the real world providers fight tooth and nail to avoid competing. Be it through patents, copyrights, buyouts, government lobbying (ie: ban on importing drugs), etc. Realistically, it's difficult to actually lower cost when you have basically most all the players not really wanting to compete, and you have laws perfectly compatible with free market (ie: patents) going directly against that. And this is a market where the people lives are at stake.

Barrycare didn't touch cost at all. It tried to artificially inflate access, under the assumption that more people covered meant lesser costs. But anybody that's been paying attention to what I described above, already knew that was not going to work. The market itself is distorted, and frankly doesn't lend itself well to your usual free market rules. The people that are likely to need more care are the people making the least amount of money, if any, and not necessarily because they don't want to.

On the other hand, you don't have to go full-blown socialism. Most countries not named the US already figured out that plain old "free market" doesn't work for that particular "market". And the options are diverse. There's all sorts of mixed systems, from government providing all care, to government providing just catastrophic coverage, to disengaging coverage from employment, etc. There's a lot of models out there, some of them pretty efficient (like Switzerland or Singapore), which pay a lot less per capita and have same or better outcomes. Some do it with price caps, some do it with sliding-scale subsidies, some with HSAs.

The US probably has the longest history in trying to make this work under a free market system. It didn't work. It's not that the free market or capitalism doesn't work, it's that this just isn't your typical market, and the utopian perfect free market doesn't exist in reality either. And politically and humanly speaking, this is an important issue for a lot of people. From the young that one day it's going to be old to the old people that are already there.

I think the discussion has to center on how to tackle cost, in the context of what this market looks like and how the real world works. I think discussing the merits of capitalism over socialism misses the point and really doesn't give you any solutions to the actual problem.

[ElNono]

Went on a tangent here... as far as the OP, he's a fagg... I mean, some blue teamers are mad, that's about it. They'll get over it, and then post as boutons over here, tbh...

[Chillen]

Love this song, it lightens the load of those who take politics to seriously:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaduwhxg-lE

[rmt]

I don't see why not....in fact, social security has been so successful that it's even a big part of funded our economic growth for the last 20 years...

If SS has been so successful, why will it be in trouble by mid 2030s?

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html

[Chillen]

If SS has been so successful, why will it be in trouble by mid 2030s?

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html

It was actually a democrat that started SS troubles, lol. Seriously if the government ever takes people's hard earned SS away, what's the point of working your whole life in this country? Got to have something to fall back on when your old.

[Chillen]

Some of these people are just losers acting like sore losers. That and Soros pays pretty well.

It's weird though, Shillary is a bigger warhawk than Trump and they still go crazy. Or this guy below, the corporations on his flag were all in the tank for crooked H.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/11/10/11/3A333EA000000578-3922098-Seattle_One_of_her_compatriots_wears_a_US_flag_emb lazoned_with_c-a-25_1478776851438.jpg

What a clown, the American flag on one side and apple logo, other logos on the other.

[Nbadan]

If SS has been so successful, why will it be in trouble by mid 2030s?

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html

Cause people are living longer....SS can be fixed by simply moving up the MAX income from 250K

[Winehole23]

http://mashable.com/2012/11/06/trump-reacts-to-election/#SuHUogyGskq7

[rmt]

It was actually a democrat that started SS troubles, lol. Seriously if the government ever takes people's hard earned SS away, what's the point of working your whole life in this country? Got to have something to fall back on when your old.


Cause people are living longer....SS can be fixed by simply moving up the MAX income from 250K

The government hasn't invested what the seniors contributed - they've spent most of it. They're paying them with contributions from current workers. With not that many people working now and the Baby Boomers collecting, SS's gonna run into problems. Imo, just moving up the max income won't be enough - they should move up the age to 70 too.

[Will Hunting]

People are just completely disgusted we could ever so so retarded as to elect someone like this tbh..it is extraordinarily humiliating. The international community was almost universally appalled. Gonna be annoying traveling overseas again next summer..might even try to fake an accent and tell people I'm a Brit honestly and thats not a joke at all

I get that part, my question is more around what they're trying to accomplish.....or maybe they're just protesting for the sake of it and don't want to think about why Trump was able to win and don't want to make any effort to see things through the eyes of Trump supporters.

Maybe it's time to look at what's wrong with their political party that's completely lost the base it had 50 years ago and just conducted a primary that was rigged at every level.

[hater]

The change candidate will fail again.

Yup. I think Trump is believing its his destiny to rule and change this country and he will most likely fail. Keep in mind this is the same belief Obama had.

The proble is the same toxic assholes that Obama had to rely on to run the country will come back with Trump.

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

To get paid

http://i.imgur.com/90xXBLB.jpg

[DMC]

What a clown, the American flag on one side and apple logo, other logos on the other.

I think the point of that flag is to say the US is a collection of corporate interests, not that he supports those corporations, but I could be wrong. I don't study those faggots to much.

[DMC]

Yup. I think Trump is believing its his destiny to rule and change this country and he will most likely fail. Keep in mind this is the same belief Obama had.

The proble is the same toxic assholes that Obama had to rely on to run the country will come back with Trump.
Washington is made up of pirates and when a new captain comes along who is unfamiliar with the waters he hopes to change, the pirates say "you are unfamiliar, and can easily end up on the rocks. Let us ride with you to show you where you need to go". They seem to hitch rides quite easily. Thus the system remains.

[RandomGuy]

http://mashable.com/2012/11/06/trump-reacts-to-election/#dml7UA1SmkqP

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266034630820507648?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw




We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!


Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us.

[DMC]

Best way to protest the federal government and the rest of the US is to send back the welfare checks, don't even cash them. It's corrupt money from racists, islamaphobes, homophobes and misogynists.

[RandomGuy]

GLG9g7BcjKs

[Splits]

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1l3KC3ewnq8/WCYZkHtBMyI/AAAAAAAAoEg/rMlxdoXWGxMpV7RJWUUK9X3ysvSSNymlACLcB/s640/donald-trump-tweets-2012-1478856552.jpg

[spurraider21]

ITT: ElNono went in raw

[Clipper Nation]

when the right wing takes to the streets we'll see the difference. it won't be as pretty as what we see now.
We saw it already. The Tea Party didn't destroy any cities. They peacefully demonstrated AND, more importantly, voted people into office who would represent them. Meanwhile, Occupy was busy setting up "rape tents."

Face it - there's no equivalent on the right to the mentally ill, childish nutjobs who currently make up the left.

[ElNono]

ITT: ElNono went in raw

I did not. It's my opinion and debatable. I'm sure when healthcare reform is the topic du-jour again, we'll discuss it again.

[spurraider21]

I did not. It's my opinion and debatable. I'm sure when healthcare reform is the topic du-jour again, we'll discuss it again.well you actually presented a coherent and thought out opinion as opposed to social healthcare is bad because socialism is bad. and socialism is bad because its bad

[TeyshaBlue]

I did not. It's my opinion and debatable. I'm sure when healthcare reform is the topic du-jour again, we'll discuss it again.

Shup stupid head!

[Th'Pusher]

I did not. It's my opinion and debatable. I'm sure when healthcare reform is the topic du-jour again, we'll discuss it again.
It was telling in that DMC's lack of a response made it clear he was wholly unqualified to debate healthcare policy, so that was fun.

[DMC]

It was telling in that DMC's lack of a response made it clear he was wholly unqualified to debate healthcare policy, so that was fun.

I haven't actually read it yet.

[TeyshaBlue]

I haven't actually read it yet.

Worth a read, tbh.

[DMC]

I've gone through this reasoning before, but let's do it again. I have nothing against the free market, but in certain areas, you simply have competing interests, and that's probably we should be talking about.

On any free market system, you'll always have profit motive over anything else. That's how the free market works. On the other hand, it's also arguable that government has a compelling interest in the good health and well being of their citizens in order to have a productive society (and the fact that it's political suicide not to care for your sick and elder). So there's the competing interest between fiduciary duty to your shareholders vs what's better for your customers/patients. On the real world free market, that's not really a choice, your shareholders always come first. You also have the unavoidable reality that in this "market" (aka society) you have all sorts of people, of all sorts of ages, that have all sorts of medical needs, and after certain age, an inability of to work and pay for that profit that needs to be made. It's not an even market, with even needs. It's already a distorted market due to age, epidemics, etc.

That's how we arrived to the previous system, where "free market" only really applied to the relatively healthy individuals (not too old, no pre-existing conditions, not disabled, etc), it tied a lot of the access to employment, and when it stopped being a good business (ie: people got old, were sick or disabled), they were dumped to the state to subsidize. When the actual need of care went up, and the cost went in hand with it, the "free market" decided it would have none of it. And obviously any sane government won't let the old, sick and disabled just die on the street (unless you're Ron Paul, I suppose, tbh). So we ended up with a very cozy arrangement between private companies/insurers covering relatively healthy people and government funneling whatever monies to take care of those that actually need care the most. And that's how we ended up being one of the countries where the cost of care per capita is one of the highest in the world, no matter if it's private or government paying for care and no matter the outcomes. Because "cost" never really entered the picture. It's so brazen that it's almost impossible to know full in advance how much any given procedure is going to cost you.

On competition specifically, I also have nothing against it and would welcome more competition, but this analysis has to be in context with reality: in the real world providers fight tooth and nail to avoid competing. Be it through patents, copyrights, buyouts, government lobbying (ie: ban on importing drugs), etc. Realistically, it's difficult to actually lower cost when you have basically most all the players not really wanting to compete, and you have laws perfectly compatible with free market (ie: patents) going directly against that. And this is a market where the people lives are at stake.

Barrycare didn't touch cost at all. It tried to artificially inflate access, under the assumption that more people covered meant lesser costs. But anybody that's been paying attention to what I described above, already knew that was not going to work. The market itself is distorted, and frankly doesn't lend itself well to your usual free market rules. The people that are likely to need more care are the people making the least amount of money, if any, and not necessarily because they don't want to.

On the other hand, you don't have to go full-blown socialism. Most countries not named the US already figured out that plain old "free market" doesn't work for that particular "market". And the options are diverse. There's all sorts of mixed systems, from government providing all care, to government providing just catastrophic coverage, to disengaging coverage from employment, etc. There's a lot of models out there, some of them pretty efficient (like Switzerland or Singapore), which pay a lot less per capita and have same or better outcomes. Some do it with price caps, some do it with sliding-scale subsidies, some with HSAs.

The US probably has the longest history in trying to make this work under a free market system. It didn't work. It's not that the free market or capitalism doesn't work, it's that this just isn't your typical market, and the utopian perfect free market doesn't exist in reality either. And politically and humanly speaking, this is an important issue for a lot of people. From the young that one day it's going to be old to the old people that are already there.

I think the discussion has to center on how to tackle cost, in the context of what this market looks like and how the real world works. I think discussing the merits of capitalism over socialism misses the point and really doesn't give you any solutions to the actual problem.

I edited my response because Nono's post covers too many facets of the discussion to effectively debate. The crux though is that Obamacare didn't work, and the free market system didn't work because companies are greedy profit driven trolls. It doesn't provide an alternative to either, and since funding is indeed the main hurdle (face it, we could make our own medical plan if funding wasn't an issue) you're left with the fact that a plan has to be sustainable. It might not cover everyone. Not all auto insurance companies will cover everyone. It depends on the risks.

I do think people should be held responsible for self induced health issues caused by smoking, drug abuse, alcohol, obesity and such. There has to be accountability, we have to be the 1st line of responsibility for our own health and not just as a personal mission statement. It needs to be federally mandated that these issues can make you ineligible for healthcare coverage.

Insurance should not cover lifestyle changes, like sex changes. It should only cover physical issues, not emotional ones. Sure emotional problems can lead to physical issues but we have to get our heads above water on physical health before we can get so ambitious as to think we can fix all with one swoop of the pen.

[Th'Pusher]

I edited my response because Nono's post covers too many facets of the discussion to effectively debate. The crux though is that Obamacare didn't work, and the free market system didn't work because companies are greedy profit driven trolls. It doesn't provide an alternative to either, and since funding is indeed the main hurdle (face it, we could make our own medical plan if funding wasn't an issue) you're left with the fact that a plan has to be sustainable. It might not cover everyone. Not all auto insurance companies will cover everyone. It depends on the risks.

I do think people should be held responsible for self induced health issues caused by smoking, drug abuse, alcohol, obesity and such. There has to be accountability, we have to be the 1st line of responsibility for our own health and not just as a personal mission statement. It needs to be federally mandated that these issues can make you ineligible for healthcare coverage.

Insurance should not cover lifestyle changes, like sex changes. It should only cover physical issues, not emotional ones. Sure emotional problems can lead to physical issues but we have to get our heads above water on physical health before we can get so ambitious as to think we can fix all with one swoop of the pen.

It's now established that DMC is wholly unqualified to debate healthcare policy ,tbh.

[ElNono]

I edited my response because Nono's post covers too many facets of the discussion to effectively debate. The crux though is that Obamacare didn't work, and the free market system didn't work because companies are greedy profit driven trolls. It doesn't provide an alternative to either, and since funding is indeed the main hurdle (face it, we could make our own medical plan if funding wasn't an issue) you're left with the fact that a plan has to be sustainable. It might not cover everyone. Not all auto insurance companies will cover everyone. It depends on the risks.

I do think people should be held responsible for self induced health issues caused by smoking, drug abuse, alcohol, obesity and such. There has to be accountability, we have to be the 1st line of responsibility for our own health and not just as a personal mission statement. It needs to be federally mandated that these issues can make you ineligible for healthcare coverage.

Insurance should not cover lifestyle changes, like sex changes. It should only cover physical issues, not emotional ones. Sure emotional problems can lead to physical issues but we have to get our heads above water on physical health before we can get so ambitious as to think we can fix all with one swoop of the pen.

I figured you just didn't feel like reading a wall of text, which is fine... :lol

That was actually the short version of some of these same discussions we had back in the Barrycare days, tbh, it's just a much more complex topic than a lot of people give it credit for... I mean, if we really start talking about funding, we also can't obviate that the US is largely indirectly subsidizing healthcare around the world. IMO, the biggest hurdle about healthcare reform in the US is that it questions certain dogmas, and it touches certain topics like compassion, welfare, freedom, not to mention the size of lobbies, etc.

It took a free market champion like Reagan, at perhaps his highest popularity level, to eradicate "patient dumping"... and yet, since then, almost 55% of emergency care visits go uncompensated.

There's no easy answers to this problem, but there's certainly models out there that at least are much more efficient than the US when it comes to cost of care with similar outcomes, and are worth examining and discussing. It's a shame that the conversation a lot of times end up being reduced to "socialism!" or "welfare!" and the like...

[TDMVPDPOY]

so u teling there are more white biggots then normal white folks in america?

didnt count blacks cause it look like they didnt went out to vote since there was no black candidate

[Winehole23]

We saw it already. The Tea Party didn't destroy any cities. They peacefully demonstrated AND, more importantly, voted people into office who would represent them. Meanwhile, Occupy was busy setting up "rape tents."

Face it - there's no equivalent on the right to the mentally ill, childish nutjobs who currently make up the left.scary mean libs ruin everything :cry

[DMC]

I figured you just didn't feel like reading a wall of text, which is fine... :lol

That was actually the short version of some of these same discussions we had back in the Barrycare days, tbh, it's just a much more complex topic than a lot of people give it credit for... I mean, if we really start talking about funding, we also can't obviate that the US is largely indirectly subsidizing healthcare around the world. IMO, the biggest hurdle about healthcare reform in the US is that it questions certain dogmas, and it touches certain topics like compassion, welfare, freedom, not to mention the size of lobbies, etc.

It took a free market champion like Reagan, at perhaps his highest popularity level, to eradicate "patient dumping"... and yet, since then, almost 55% of emergency care visits go uncompensated.

There's no easy answers to this problem, but there's certainly models out there that at least are much more efficient than the US when it comes to cost of care with similar outcomes, and are worth examining and discussing. It's a shame that the conversation a lot of times end up being reduced to "socialism!" or "welfare!" and the like...

It gets reduced to that because that's eventually the outcome. How many times can you collect for the same fee? We pay federal income tax which, in great part, is diverted to people in parts of the world who pay in nothing. Then we pay medicare, which seems to not really be working very well but we are charged just the same. Then we pay in social security which won't be around for us when we retire, so we are donating to a large ponzi scheme with no payout for us. Now this moral dilemma which always seems to be the prodigal child returning with their hand out for more support money, at age 40, because they still haven't decided what they want to do with their life and somehow that's the working man's responsibility to fund.

We're sick of rewarding laziness and dragging the fat bastards along. Sure it comes down to socialism and welfare. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is fine, if you're Paul.

The moral dilemma is often for those who aren't paying anything. Those being robbed see it pretty clear, keep your fucking hands out of my wallet, get a job, leave us alone.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Nowt he poor are poor because they are lazy. Have to love shoebox one size fits all thinking.

[Thread]

Nowt he poor are poor because they are lazy. Have to love shoebox one size fits all thinking.

tee, hee. Though it does cut down on the consternation, Fuzzy.

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

Lol look at these protesters

http://i.imgur.com/tyYIAAo.jpg

These 9 libcucks vs 1 average Trump supporter who you got?

ups4FeSuHvY

[DMC]

Nowt he poor are poor because they are lazy. Have to love shoebox one size fits all thinking.

"the poor" lol
You said poor, I said lazy. You made the connection. Why is that?

[ElNono]

It gets reduced to that because that's eventually the outcome. How many times can you collect for the same fee? We pay federal income tax which, in great part, is diverted to people in parts of the world who pay in nothing. Then we pay medicare, which seems to not really be working very well but we are charged just the same. Then we pay in social security which won't be around for us when we retire, so we are donating to a large ponzi scheme with no payout for us. Now this moral dilemma which always seems to be the prodigal child returning with their hand out for more support money, at age 40, because they still haven't decided what they want to do with their life and somehow that's the working man's responsibility to fund.

We're sick of rewarding laziness and dragging the fat bastards along. Sure it comes down to socialism and welfare. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is fine, if you're Paul.

The moral dilemma is often for those who aren't paying anything. Those being robbed see it pretty clear, keep your fucking hands out of my wallet, get a job, leave us alone.

But that really isn't the outcome, is it? That's one pretty big, lazy generalization, and I think that's where philosophically this kind of conversations go into dogma, instead of actually quantifying and addressing the actual problems.

It's like zero-tolerance policies, painting everything black and white, while we all are fully aware there's a lot of gray in between. As Thread summed up, it's a shortcut to avoid consternation. We all know it's intellectually lazy, and that complex problems oftentimes require complex solutions, attention to detail, sacrifices from different parties, etc.

There's many ways you can get to age 40 and come looking for a handout. Some might be bore out of the laziness you describe, but some might not. About half the bankruptcies in this country before Barrycare (I don't have numbers right now to see if that has changed at all, so don't take that as defending the law) were healthcare related. It's easy and lazy to say 'hurr, durr, they all made poor health choices', but there's plenty of instances where we all know that's not the case at all. The healthiest, hardest working person can have an accident, have a temporary setback and need a modicum of help to get back on his feet. It's obviously much more challenging to take a deeper look, see how we can prevent the 'moochers' and foster help for those that need the help, but it's undeniable that's the correct solution versus blanket statements like 'no more handouts!'. IMO, that's an oversight problem, not a welfare problem.

It's actually somewhat ironic. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people in America want to have a good job and succeed. But a lot of them feel the system in rigged against them, and that's exactly those feelings that Trump ran and won on. He didn't even had to pull the 'welfare queens' card, or the typical class warfare card. The pushback on globalization appears to be fairly universal at this point. And that brings us to the other side of the coin: the frustration is palpable and understandable too. How many times politicos are going to promise nirvana, tell us we need to tighten our belts and sacrifice here or there, that panacea is right around the corner, only to take a big dump on us. But none of these problems will be resolved with soundbites or moral/economic platitudes. They'll be solved with good information, a plan or vision of what the solution should look like, conviction... the sort of stuff people don't see in politicos anymore, and I believe it's a big reason why the 'outsider' sentiment grew.

I actually hope Trump does well, and has some people with the required balls. It's a bit disconcerting, tbh, seeing career politicos like Newt around him and I know he's going to have a hell of a fight from Congress, etc if he really intends to pull off what he campaigned on... much like the pushback he had from his own party in the run up to his actual presidency. But we're in uncharted waters, so I think he deserves a chance.

[Thread]

^^^

D M C

[DMC]

But that really isn't the outcome, is it? That's one pretty big, lazy generalization, and I think that's where philosophically this kind of conversations go into dogma, instead of actually quantifying and addressing the actual problems.

It's like zero-tolerance policies, painting everything black and white, while we all are fully aware there's a lot of gray in between. As Thread summed up, it's a shortcut to avoid consternation. We all know it's intellectually lazy, and that complex problems oftentimes require complex solutions, attention to detail, sacrifices from different parties, etc.

There's many ways you can get to age 40 and come looking for a handout. Some might be bore out of the laziness you describe, but some might not. About half the bankruptcies in this country before Barrycare (I don't have numbers right now to see if that has changed at all, so don't take that as defending the law) were healthcare related. It's easy and lazy to say 'hurr, durr, they all made poor health choices', but there's plenty of instances where we all know that's not the case at all. The healthiest, hardest working person can have an accident, have a temporary setback and need a modicum of help to get back on his feet. It's obviously much more challenging to take a deeper look, see how we can prevent the 'moochers' and foster help for those that need the help, but it's undeniable that's the correct solution versus blanket statements like 'no more handouts!'. IMO, that's an oversight problem, not a welfare problem.

It's actually somewhat ironic. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people in America want to have a good job and succeed. But a lot of them feel the system in rigged against them, and that's exactly those feelings that Trump ran and won on. He didn't even had to pull the 'welfare queens' card, or the typical class warfare card. The pushback on globalization appears to be fairly universal at this point. And that brings us to the other side of the coin: the frustration is palpable and understandable too. How many times politicos are going to promise nirvana, tell us we need to tighten our belts and sacrifice here or there, that panacea is right around the corner, only to take a big dump on us. But none of these problems will be resolved with soundbites or moral/economic platitudes. They'll be solved with good information, a plan or vision of what the solution should look like, conviction... the sort of stuff people don't see in politicos anymore, and I believe it's a big reason why the 'outsider' sentiment grew.

I actually hope Trump does well, and has some people with the required balls. It's a bit disconcerting, tbh, seeing career politicos like Newt around him and I know he's going to have a hell of a fight from Congress, etc if he really intends to pull off what he campaigned on... much like the pushback he had from his own party in the run up to his actual presidency. But we're in uncharted waters, so I think he deserves a chance.

If the argument was as simple as "hurr durr durr they made poor health choices" then sure, but it's not. You have to add "so I am financially responsible for the repercussions". This is the fundamental argument against socialism. It's why socialism does not work. We aren't talking about sharing a power supply with devices that all require a specific amount of voltage and current. We're talking about a system that allows people to simply ride along for free, and not just a few people. The free riders are the problem, not the providers. So the proposal is almost always to increase spending to cover the increase in free riders. That means people who don't ride for free have to divvy up more money for the same or less service.

I'm well aware that not every case is a fat lazy bastard. Some are elderly or even children with pre-existing conditions. That's fine, because the accountability rule would allow them to coast right by. The smokers, drug addicts, bums... obese fucks.. those people would be left to fend for themselves. Sorry, but there's no right to free healthcare. There's no right to force others to absorb your self destructive life style.

I'd probably hurt some feelings, but I would let drug addicts die. I would let morbidly obese people die. I would execute everyone on death row. I would execute anyone with a life sentence for a capital offense. If it was a drug offense, I would simply examine their case and determine if they can be released. If not, I'd execute them. Sounds extreme but we are spending too much money to feel good about ourselves.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I'll have a Coke

[ElNono]

If the argument was as simple as "hurr durr durr they made poor health choices" then sure, but it's not. You have to add "so I am financially responsible for the repercussions". This is the fundamental argument against socialism. It's why socialism does not work. We aren't talking about sharing a power supply with devices that all require a specific amount of voltage and current. We're talking about a system that allows people to simply ride along for free, and not just a few people. The free riders are the problem, not the providers. So the proposal is almost always to increase spending to cover the increase in free riders. That means people who don't ride for free have to divvy up more money for the same or less service.

I'm well aware that not every case is a fat lazy bastard. Some are elderly or even children with pre-existing conditions. That's fine, because the accountability rule would allow them to coast right by. The smokers, drug addicts, bums... obese fucks.. those people would be left to fend for themselves. Sorry, but there's no right to free healthcare. There's no right to force others to absorb your self destructive life style.

I'd probably hurt some feelings, but I would let drug addicts die. I would let morbidly obese people die. I would execute everyone on death row. I would execute anyone with a life sentence for a capital offense. If it was a drug offense, I would simply examine their case and determine if they can be released. If not, I'd execute them. Sounds extreme but we are spending too much money to feel good about ourselves.

Your argument is largely a non-issue, because that's not where the bulk of our healthcare dollars are spent on. Most drug addicts and morbidly obese people don't get to be 60 or 70 years old. That's really a problem that's largely taking care of itself. Here's a chart from Forbes on our per-capita spending by age from 2012 (most recent I could find):

http://i66.tinypic.com/9sb9d3.jpg

(Article here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2012/12/30/2012-the-year-in-healthcare-charts/)

Our cost problem really is tied to age and the fact that on a market with restrained competition and desperate people, prices are adjusted to what the market will bear. That is as free market as it comes: you seek the highest margin and the best return on investment. Your most valuable assets are those protected by patents that prevent competition, are popular enough where you can maximize the margin and if you can turn your customer into a renter, then all the better. Note I find nothing wrong with that, from a financial/economic aspect. Under that model there really is no incentive to spend R&D money on actual cures. If I'm a shareholder of any of these providers, the focus should be on rent-seeking, patentable goods that can be marketed to reach the pinnacle of popularity

But it's undeniable there's competing aspect here, that has to do with the human side. And that's where this (depending who you ask) gets muddy. Some people will argue: what's the cost in human lives of this system? Some people will respond that the alternative is socialism. And I don't think that's true. Most healthcare systems in the world are not full blown socialism (where doctors are government employees, hospitals are government run, etc). The dichotomy that there's either free market or socialism and nothing in between is not real (IMO anyways).

You brought a good point too, that's brought often: there's no right to free healthcare (at least in the US and with some exceptions, I suppose, like eligible veterans). Some will argue that under the free market there's no right to healthcare at all, you either can afford it or not. That's kinda where we were until hospitals were forced to take in patients in emergency rooms.

I mention it's a good point, because I also think it's another worthwhile discussion we ought to have. Would citizens be better served if they didn't have to stress or worry about healthcare costs, and can conduct their lives with that monkey off their backs (and especially in the US at this time, that's a pretty heavy monkey). Notice I'm not advocating for it, I'm merely bringing it up. I'd like to perhaps see hard numbers compared to other nations on that. One of the counter-arguments, rightly so, is the one you bring up: what do we do with the abusers of a potential system like that, and I think it's a valid point of discussion too. If you do turn it into a privilege, do you penalize those that don't behave, much like we do with bad drivers? Food for thought, and another tangent on this discussion.

In sum, I feel there are much more questions than answers on this whole dilemma. And I don't hear the people in charge of potentially shaping it asking or talking about those questions. There's the one zingers and silver bullets... "HSAs!", "state lines!", "single-payer!", "socialism!", "free-market!". Maybe people don't really feel like taking a deep look at it. Some people probably just want a solution that works for them or their pockets.

When Barrycare gets reformed, there will be winners and losers, no doubt about it. I just hope they throw the citizens a bone. Barrycare or what was before it largely did not, IMO.

[spurraider21]

makers and takers imo