Reply With Quote
....This is somewhere where Trump can win..but Syria and Iraq are a mess....how long can he resist GOP interventionists?it's weird though, Shillary is a bigger warhawk than Trump and they still go crazy.
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.
....This is somewhere where Trump can win..but Syria and Iraq are a mess....how long can he resist GOP interventionists?it's weird though, Shillary is a bigger warhawk than Trump and they still go crazy.
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 compe ion specifically, I also have nothing against it and would welcome more compe ion, 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.
Went on a tangent here... as far as the OP, he's a g... I mean, some blue teamers are mad, that's about it. They'll get over it, and then post as boutons over here, tbh...
Love this song, it lightens the load of those who take politics to seriously:
If SS has been so successful, why will it be in trouble by mid 2030s?
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/...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.
What a clown, the American flag on one side and apple logo, other logos on the other.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.
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.
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.
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.
To get paid
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 gots to much.
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.
http://mashable.com/2012/11/06/trump.../#dml7UA1SmkqP
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...rc=twsrc%5Etfw
Lets fight like and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 11-12-2016 at 05:23 PM. Reason: dead link
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, phobes and misogynists.
ITT: ElNono went in raw
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.
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
Shup stupid head!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
