here's the direct issue.
Trump, yesterday:
"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it," Trump said Tuesday at the White House in his first public appearance since the Senate bill fell apart. "I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it. We'll let Obamacare fail and then the Democrats are going to come to us."
And Trump in 2012
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/250975772083380226
good start but u forgot one wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:The simplest way to control costs would be to put everyone on Medicare. Medicare is the most cost-effective health insurance in America. And it provides fantastic coverage.
The second way to control costs would be to allow the US Government to negotiate prescription drug prices. Then we could pay Canadian prices instead of getting gouged at every turn.
But as many have pointed out, neither party seems to want to actually fix the problem. So we will all continue to massively over-pay for health care.
Those ideas are a good start. Another good one would be to outlaw, retroactively, for-profit hospital chains. In the ACA, there is a provision eliminating any new Physician owned hospitals from being opened. Part of the basis of that decision was outlined in a now-famous New Yorker article written by a Harvard surgeon-Atul Gewande. In his article, Dr. Gewande put a spotlight on some hospitals (physician owned) down in Texas that where doing some highly unethical things in order to make money. While the decision to ban physician owned hospitals made some sense based on the article, the real root of the problem was profiteering off of medicine--the degrees held by the leadership / upper level management of those hospitals seems like a red herring. I mean, does anyone really think that someone with a MBA, a MHA, or a JD running a hospital is not going to have a profit motive? For profit Hospital chains are disgusting and unethical and should be banned.
Most hospitals in this country are non-profit. But in reality, that is only a tax designation. The truth is that large non-profit hospitals are giant cash machines.
They use some of this cash to compensate upper management at obscene levels that you simply don't find in other non-profit entities.
But the worst abuse of their power is that they use their extra cash to buy up other area hospitals and control the market. Doctors often have little choice but to join the hospital group and even insurance companies bow to their market dominance. All this drives up costs and allows the hospital to charge outrageous fees for everything they do.
Count Chocula wrote:
Serious question- is there any reason that hospitals and drug companies would support Medicare for all? I have virtually zero experience with Medicare/Medicaid but I thought that the prices are considerably lower than insurance. Wouldn't Medicare for all massively hurt their bottom line? I assume that the medical lobby pushes both parties to, like you said, not fix the problem. But I could be wrong.
That's an excellent question. I'll tell you what I know.
First, Medicaid kind of stinks for everyone. It's mostly health care for the poor and many doctors refuse to accept it because of low reimbursement rates.
Medicare, on the other hand, is pretty terrific. Just ask anyone over 65 and they will tell you how much better it is than private health insurance. Almost all doctors do accept Medicare because payouts are pretty good. Under law, Medicare payments adhere to a strict formula where doctors and hospitals are reimbursed for their costs plus a fixed profit margin.
Does this mean doctors and hospitals would lose out in a Medicare for all plan? Some might. But note that there are hospitals in retirement areas like Florida where almost all the patients are on Medicare. Those hospitals are doing quite well. Plus, if everyone were covered, there would be more patients. So many providers would make more money than today just because of the extra volume of patients.
I'd say we stay focused on healthcare, since the Russia thing has, and continues to be, largely innuendo and insinuation of the lowest double-standard.
exthrower wrote:
And Dershowitz is a famously liberal Harvard law professor ...But probably not as smart as fat/flagpole/Eric.
More importantly, Dershowitz is no smarter than all the ivy league law professors who say he's wrong.
Dershowitz is a hired gun who will say anything for a buck.
eric a blair wrote:
here's the direct issue.
Trump, yesterday:
"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it," Trump said Tuesday at the White House in his first public appearance since the Senate bill fell apart. "I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it. We'll let Obamacare fail and then the Democrats are going to come to us."
As usual whatever Trump says flip it to see what he is really saying.
"I own it," Trump said Tuesday at the White House in his first public appearance since the Senate bill fell apart. "I can tell you the Republicans own it. We'll let Trumpcare fail and then the Democrats are going to laugh at us."
didn't vote wrote:
I'd say we stay focused on healthcare, since the Russia thing has, and continues to be, largely innuendo and insinuation of the lowest double-standard.
0/10
Trump Jr and Manafort will be testifying to the Senate Intelligence Committee about the Russia Thingy.
didn't vote wrote:
I'd say we stay focused on healthcare, since the Russia thing has, and continues to be, largely innuendo and insinuation of the lowest double-standard.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/18691/poll-just-6-americans-say-russia-story-important-joseph-curl#exit-modal
the brain trust of the trump campaign admits to the desire to collude with the Russian government and everyone conveniently 'forgets' to list the meeting on their security clearance forms.
Mr Mueller is not amused, I am sure. And neither is the
senate
house
CIA
NSA
FBI
all investigating.
didn't vote wrote:
I'd say we stay focused on healthcare, since the Russia thing has, and continues to be, largely innuendo and insinuation of the lowest double-standard.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/18691/poll-just-6-americans-say-russia-story-important-joseph-curl#exit-modal
I don't know a single person that cares about the Russia story. And I have plenty of friends on both sides of the aisle. If they didn't tamper with the vote tallies, it's fair game.
Now, the major media outlets colluding with the DNC and Hillary campaign throughout the primaries and general election? THAT should scare the heck out of people.
Needaninvestigation wrote:
I don't know a single person that cares about the Russia story. And I have plenty of friends on both sides of the aisle. If they didn't tamper with the vote tallies, it's fair game.
Now, the major media outlets colluding with the DNC and Hillary campaign throughout the primaries and general election? THAT should scare the heck out of people.
Am I misinterpreting you, or are you saying that it's "fair game" for a foreign government to try to influence voters, but it's not okay for domestic media outlets to do the same?
Needaninvestigation wrote:
didn't vote wrote:I'd say we stay focused on healthcare, since the Russia thing has, and continues to be, largely innuendo and insinuation of the lowest double-standard.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/18691/poll-just-6-americans-say-russia-story-important-joseph-curl#exit-modalI don't know a single person that cares about the Russia story. And I have plenty of friends on both sides of the aisle. If they didn't tamper with the vote tallies, it's fair game.
Now, the major media outlets colluding with the DNC and Hillary campaign throughout the primaries and general election? THAT should scare the heck out of people.
if the Dems had colluded with Russia spies you people would be at the door of the white house demanding President HRC's head.
I mean most of you people are already so eager to slam her that most of you think she is a child slaver and BHO is a Kenyan muslim socialist. If she had actually met with Russian spies to help win the election? I can't even imagine. You go nuts over made up stuff...anything real would be a heart attack, stroke inducing death moment.
Needaninvestigation wrote:
Now, the major media outlets colluding with the DNC and Hillary campaign throughout the primaries and general election? THAT should scare the heck out of people.
It should scare the heck outta people, you're right. Unfortunately many people simply don't know the extent of it because most media outlets won't mention it. Something like 96% of journalist and media donations during the campaign went to Hillary. There's a reason every media outlet said she was going to win without a doubt. Not because their internal polls showed she would, but because the media wanted her to. So they tried to shape the narrative. It failed. They've also tried to shape the Russia narrative. That failed. The media has been largely discredited. It's one thing to have a slight bias, but this concerted effort to demonize everything the President and his administration are doing, is so obvious. People don't like double-standards, they don't like having something shoved down their throats. If the media was more subtle, its attacks would likely succeed. But what we've seen, interestingly, is that supporters of the President are even more emboldened, and those in the middle-of-the-road, are more open to viewing the administration with fresh eyes. The media, as a major mechanism for the Democrat party, has damaged that party. Expect to see a lot of future losses for the Democrat party as a result of this eroded trust.
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-campaign-casheric a blair wrote:
if the Dems had colluded with Russia spies you people would be at the door of the white house demanding President HRC's head.
I mean most of you people are already so eager to slam her that most of you think she is a child slaver and BHO is a Kenyan muslim socialist. If she had actually met with Russian spies to help win the election? I can't even imagine. You go nuts over made up stuff...anything real would be a heart attack, stroke inducing death moment.
Well said.
[quote]Needaninvestigation wrote:
I don't know a single person that cares about the Russia story. And I have plenty of friends on both sides of the aisle./quote]
0/10. You should try coming out of mommy's basement and making real friends, other than the stuffed toys you call friends.
eric a blair wrote:
if the Dems had colluded with Russia spies you people would be at the door of the white house demanding President HRC's head.
If she had actually met with Russian spies to help win the election? I can't even imagine. You go nuts over made up stuff...anything real would be a heart attack, stroke inducing death moment.
You're using terms loosely without substantive evidence to support them. Regurgitating partisan talking points doesn't make something true. I think you and your fellow Democrats and liberals would be wise to reduce this alarmist rhetoric. Election results indicate that this isn't resonating. It also appears you're projecting quite heavily. I've noticed this throughout many of the posts on this board, right and left. However, your saying "go nuts over made up stuff" is ironic given the number of news sources and media outlets you've cited that have been forced to make retractions, amendments, and even apologies. Independent studies have indicated statistically significant media biases of a very large magnitude. I'd urge you to step back from a largely failed ideology and see what's really happening. Temper your emotions, understand why the Democrats were defeated, and be a positive force for your party.
burkk wrote:
eric a blair wrote:if the Dems had colluded with Russia spies you people would be at the door of the white house demanding President HRC's head.
If she had actually met with Russian spies to help win the election? I can't even imagine. You go nuts over made up stuff...anything real would be a heart attack, stroke inducing death moment.
You're using terms loosely without substantive evidence to support them. Regurgitating partisan talking points doesn't make something true. I think you and your fellow Democrats and liberals would be wise to reduce this alarmist rhetoric. Election results indicate that this isn't resonating. It also appears you're projecting quite heavily. I've noticed this throughout many of the posts on this board, right and left. However, your saying "go nuts over made up stuff" is ironic given the number of news sources and media outlets you've cited that have been forced to make retractions, amendments, and even apologies. Independent studies have indicated statistically significant media biases of a very large magnitude. I'd urge you to step back from a largely failed ideology and see what's really happening. Temper your emotions, understand why the Democrats were defeated, and be a positive force for your party.
noted that you absolutely did not address my point. Rather, you created a straw man and then attacked it with your weird prose.
want to try again?
. . . and on that note of being a positive force for your party, how's this for positive news about members of a political party:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-voters-republicans-overall-actually-200200054.html
Turns out that Trumpettes really would still back him if he shot some random person in cold blood.
This is America, folks. (if you don't like it you can leave ;-D )
eric a blair wrote: want to try again?You used the words "Russia spies" and "colluded" and "you people"... What people are you referring to? Collusion of any kind between the current administration and Russia has not been demonstrated. And who are these "Russia spies" you speak of? I'm assuming you're insinuating that these things have happened with the Trump admin, and that if they happened with the Hillary admin., her detractors would "have a stroke"? Am I correct? Anyway, I again urge you to reevaluate what you feel, think, and say, because I'm not sure you are being rational about what has actually transpired.
burkk wrote:
eric a blair wrote: want to try again?You used the words "Russia spies" and "colluded" and "you people"... What people are you referring to? Collusion of any kind between the current administration and Russia has not been demonstrated. And who are these "Russia spies" you speak of? I'm assuming you're insinuating that these things have happened with the Trump admin, and that if they happened with the Hillary admin., her detractors would "have a stroke"? Am I correct? Anyway, I again urge you to reevaluate what you feel, think, and say, because I'm not sure you are being rational about what has actually transpired.
Russia spies: Junior, manafort, kush met with a guy trained by Russian intelligence and a 'Russian government lawyer.' They were told the Russian government had info they could use against HRC.
'you people': trumpers who still support him. Specifically those who believe fake news about her.
Collusion...sort of. INTENT to collude has conclusively been proven.
I'm totally rational. Repubs, on the other hand, are not. Apparenlty only 44% of them believe Junior when he said he had a meeting with a Russian government lawyer and a Russian spy.
THAT is not rational.
For the record, I'm always reevaluating.
Am I living in the twilight zone? The Boston Marathon weather was terrible!
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
How rare is it to run a sub 5 minute mile AND bench press 225?
Move over Mark Coogan, Rojo and John Kellogg share their 3 favorite mile workouts
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these
Matt Choi was drinking beer halfway through the Boston Marathon
