Time to get on the TRUMP train

[abrown83]

I think it's hillarious that people who hang out on your side Of the isle on most issues are quick to point out the electoral college impact to the general election but won't actively discuss/acknowledge the impact of DNC superdelegates giving us the president we have today.

It's appalling. But the DNC is a private organization and can choose their nominee however they want. Parties used to choose at their conventions, up through the 60s. Not that this was better but just to make the point.

The EC is not private; it's part of the constitution and it happens to be a ridiculous relic of slavery. It's embarrassing that it still exists.

The only option that would ever pass is a Nebraska/Maine situation where delegates are appointed by Congressional district and the two left over delegates from the Senate would go to the State wide vote winner.

Small states would never ratify a change to the constitution other than that one.

Also, as a Democrat you should hope and pray that never happens as the chances of a Democrat winning the Presidency in the next 50 years would go to about zero.

[thesparten]

I watched Mark Levin's appearance on Steven Crowder's show on Friday. Regardless of what you might think of either of those guys, Levin had a great (and unfortunately accurate) line during the interview:

"Our healthcare system has been changed to where it's now built around the poor. I have no problem with giving the poor assistance if they can't afford care, but we shouldn't build the entire system around them, and ruin it for everyone else."

EXACTLY

That's what I've been saying about Obamacare (which I have personally experienced, sadly) for years.

I've posted many times on this forum that Obamacare fixed one glaring problem with the individual health care system (inability for many to get insured) but also broke the system for everyone else (everyone who had it before is paying several times more for worse care.)

I'm not suggesting we roll things back to pre-Obamacare days. I am suggesting we seriously look at the problems with our healthcare system, and fix it in a way which will survive long term.

Neither party has come up with a viable long term (or even medium-term) solution yet.

I've discussed this with you in the past as somebody who's worked in cash businesses weather a waiter or a taxi cab driver , business owner and had a girlfriend who was a cashier and wasn't covered by her employer I am very familiar with the health insurance downfalls..

New York actually had a very fair system until Obama Care it was called healthy New York..

If you made under $50,000 as an individual and weren't covered by your employer you can go into the private!! market and pick whatever Insurance you want with whatever Riders you want..

And it was set up to a sliding scale fee where the state subsidized a portion! of it..

The state saved money by you not taking medicaid only coughing up a couple of hundred bucks for you and there was personal responsibility involved.

My girlfriend who was making around $40,000 a year in New York bought a very decent HMO with a prescription plan for 220 bucks a month. There were also other plans that were more expensive as well as other plants that were cheaper.. Obamacare ruinEd all of that...

My plan cost just under $500 for all the bells and whistles.
Now it would be like 1500 with a $10,000 deductible and I wouldn't be able to use it but every illegal Mexican and baby mama would have their Medicaid..

All they have to do is make it competitive across state lines allow individuals to join groups and be competitive with pharmaceutical prices as opposed to the Monopoly end of story..

My friend who works for the New York City train system was actually going to go on strike because they were going to force him to pay $4 a week tax for his Cadillac plan.
he's also the same guy who doesn't care that everyone else has to pays thousand, thousand ,thousand a year for there plan.... fucken libtards are evil.

The neocons of the house and the Senate are f****** this whole thing up

[Wiganer]

And manages to spend a far greater of its GDP on healthcare than countries with "socialised healthcare" for worse outcomes.

Well, yes. That and the fact that the US health care system is the best in the world by a factor of 10.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publ...al-perspective

"Despite its high spending on health care, the U.S. has poor population health. [Exhibit 9]

On several measures of population health, Americans had worse outcomes than their international peers. The U.S. had the lowest life expectancy at birth of the countries studied, at 78.8 years in 2013, compared with the OECD median of 81.2 years. Additionally, the U.S. had the highest infant mortality rate among the countries studied, at 6.1 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2011; the rate in the OECD median country was 3.5 deaths.,

[ToasterOven]

Well, yes. That and the fact that the US health care system is the best in the world by a factor of 10.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publ...al-perspective

"Despite its high spending on health care, the U.S. has poor population health. [Exhibit 9]

On several measures of population health, Americans had worse outcomes than their international peers. The U.S. had the lowest life expectancy at birth of the countries studied, at 78.8 years in 2013, compared with the OECD median of 81.2 years. Additionally, the U.S. had the highest infant mortality rate among the countries studied, at 6.1 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2011; the rate in the OECD median country was 3.5 deaths.,

You can get the best health care here. The reason for those stats is that moderately poor people don't have coverage, and that's the group that is most affected by the potential new Republican plan. So when someone says "America has the best health care" they really mean "you can get the best health care in America if you can afford it".

Looking at those stats, you'd think it would be obvious to people that we need some sort of national health care, especially for lower income people. This program is Medicaid and it's administered by the states but was the most important part of Obamacare, which put a large amount of federal money into the program. It's been a huge success, but like everything in the US, it is expensive. The tax savings in Trumpcare largely come from cutting Medicaid, which will make these stats even worse.

So, what's the answer on US health care? There isn't a good one. Profit is so entrenched that it's impossible to become like the other western countries. Single payer isn't going to happen and it really isn't even plausible with our system. But going back to 15-20% uninsured isn't tenable, either. The best answer is to beef up Medicaid. Right now, under Obamacare, you are Medicaid eligible up to 135% of the poverty level. It should probably go to 150% or even 200% and that would make our overall numbers much better.

Where does the money come from? In my perfect world, it comes from our bloated defense budget. In real America, we are much more likely to die from lack of coverage than from terrorist boogiemen. In a non perfect world? It doesn't happen and we continue to have a lot of people not have coverage and that burdens the system and makes all the numbers worse.

TL;DR

[thesparten]

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publ...al-perspective

"Despite its high spending on health care, the U.S. has poor population health. [Exhibit 9]

On several measures of population health, Americans had worse outcomes than their international peers. The U.S. had the lowest life expectancy at birth of the countries studied, at 78.8 years in 2013, compared with the OECD median of 81.2 years. Additionally, the U.S. had the highest infant mortality rate among the countries studied, at 6.1 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2011; the rate in the OECD median country was 3.5 deaths.,

You can get the best health care here. The reason for those stats is that moderately poor people don't have coverage, and that's the group that is most affected by the potential new Republican plan. So when someone says "America has the best health care" they really mean "you can get the best health care in America if you can afford it".

Looking at those stats, you'd think it would be obvious to people that we need some sort of national health care, especially for lower income people. This program is Medicaid and it's administered by the states but was the most important part of Obamacare, which put a large amount of federal money into the program. It's been a huge success, but like everything in the US, it is expensive. The tax savings in Trumpcare largely come from cutting Medicaid, which will make these stats even worse.

So, what's the answer on US health care? There isn't a good one. Profit is so entrenched that it's impossible to become like the other western countries. Single payer isn't going to happen and it really isn't even plausible with our system. But going back to 15-20% uninsured isn't tenable, either. The best answer is to beef up Medicaid. Right now, under Obamacare, you are Medicaid eligible up to 135% of the poverty level. It should probably go to 150% or even 200% and that would make our overall numbers much better.

Where does the money come from? In my perfect world, it comes from our bloated defense budget. In real America, we are much more likely to die from lack of coverage than from terrorist boogiemen. In a non perfect world? It doesn't happen and we continue to have a lot of people not have coverage and that burdens the system and makes all the numbers worse.

TL;DR

I actually agree with most of this..

If your productive tax payer making from 18k to 50k.. you are basically fucked..

More fucked then a baby momma or an illigal immigrant..

Obama care actually made the problem worse for most, while helped some..

It isn't difficult..

6 month moretoriom on pre conditions..

Across state line competition.

Negotiate drug prices.

Allow individuals to join there own groups of varying sizes.

And make keeping your kids on your plan as a rider to the plan..

I BLAME THE NEOCONS NOT THE DEMS..

P.S.
They do have to enforce no illigal immigrant entitled to health care and they really, really do to much for baby mommass in New York. It's ridiculous.

[Lord of the Fraud]

Well, yes. That and the fact that the US health care system is the best in the world by a factor of 10.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publ...al-perspective

"Despite its high spending on health care, the U.S. has poor population health. [Exhibit 9]

On several measures of population health, Americans had worse outcomes than their international peers. The U.S. had the lowest life expectancy at birth of the countries studied, at 78.8 years in 2013, compared with the OECD median of 81.2 years. Additionally, the U.S. had the highest infant mortality rate among the countries studied, at 6.1 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2011; the rate in the OECD median country was 3.5 deaths.,

Wasting your time.

Rough guess, i'd say 8/10 Americans believe that their country is the best in the world, with Daly of course being part of the large majority.

They have this 'lol fact' rammed down their throats from day one. It's passed down from parent to child like an hereditary disease. From school teachers to Presidents, they're fed this ridiculous notion that America is some kind of utopia compared to everywhere else.

We, in the real civilized West, of course don't get spoonfed such insecure nonsense. Which is why we laugh and cringe in equal measure at their totally blind patriotism and delusion.

Amongst other reasons, it's partly designed for them to not question the countless deaths (on both sides) that their bullshit wars create.

[Daly]

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publ...al-perspective

"Despite its high spending on health care, the U.S. has poor population health. [Exhibit 9]

On several measures of population health, Americans had worse outcomes than their international peers. The U.S. had the lowest life expectancy at birth of the countries studied, at 78.8 years in 2013, compared with the OECD median of 81.2 years. Additionally, the U.S. had the highest infant mortality rate among the countries studied, at 6.1 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2011; the rate in the OECD median country was 3.5 deaths.,

Wasting your time.

Rough guess, i'd say 8/10 Americans believe that their country is the best in the world, with Daly of course being part of the large majority.

They have this 'lol fact' rammed down their throats from day one. It's passed down from parent to child like an hereditary disease. From school teachers to Presidents, they're fed this ridiculous notion that America is some kind of utopia compared to everywhere else.

We, in the real civilized West, of course don't get spoonfed such insecure nonsense. Which is why we laugh and cringe in equal measure at their totally blind patriotism and delusion.

Amongst other reasons, it's partly designed for them to not question the countless deaths (on both sides) that their bullshit wars create.

We are not only the greatest country in the world we are the greatest country in the history of the world.

[Daly]

Well, yes. That and the fact that the US health care system is the best in the world by a factor of 10.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publ...al-perspective

"Despite its high spending on health care, the U.S. has poor population health. [Exhibit 9]

On several measures of population health, Americans had worse outcomes than their international peers. The U.S. had the lowest life expectancy at birth of the countries studied, at 78.8 years in 2013, compared with the OECD median of 81.2 years. Additionally, the U.S. had the highest infant mortality rate among the countries studied, at 6.1 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2011; the rate in the OECD median country was 3.5 deaths.,

Greatest health care in the world does not equal greater "population health".

We are also the greatest food producers in the world, so great that we are one of the few countries in the world where too many calories consumed are the problem for most (but not all) of the population.

[hongkonger]

you sound like every politician that America HATES

blah blah blah just droning on with the same canned, regurgitated empty rhetoric

Todd do yourself a favor and NEVER run for office

you're not exactly a charismatic potential candidate even on a local level.

let alone remotely coherent when it comes to being able to connect with homo sapiens

nice blog though

You are too dumb to realize that I was bashing the Democratic Party for being corrupt and hypocritical -- something you've been unsuccessfully attempting to do for the past 1006 pages.

You should be kissing my feet for making such a well-reasoned, coherent post which is essentially on the same "side" as you are.

This thread needs more posts from rational conservatives and fewer from spastic, drunk retards.

Thank you! Even when I don't agree with you I appreciate the sanity.

You should increase the amount of rep I'm allowed to give. 😉

[Daly]

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publ...al-perspective

"Despite its high spending on health care, the U.S. has poor population health. [Exhibit 9]

On several measures of population health, Americans had worse outcomes than their international peers. The U.S. had the lowest life expectancy at birth of the countries studied, at 78.8 years in 2013, compared with the OECD median of 81.2 years. Additionally, the U.S. had the highest infant mortality rate among the countries studied, at 6.1 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2011; the rate in the OECD median country was 3.5 deaths.,

You can get the best health care here. The reason for those stats is that moderately poor people don't have coverage, and that's the group that is most affected by the potential new Republican plan. So when someone says "America has the best health care" they really mean "you can get the best health care in America if you can afford it".

Looking at those stats, you'd think it would be obvious to people that we need some sort of national health care, especially for lower income people. This program is Medicaid and it's administered by the states but was the most important part of Obamacare, which put a large amount of federal money into the program. It's been a huge success, but like everything in the US, it is expensive. The tax savings in Trumpcare largely come from cutting Medicaid, which will make these stats even worse.

So, what's the answer on US health care? There isn't a good one. Profit is so entrenched that it's impossible to become like the other western countries. Single payer isn't going to happen and it really isn't even plausible with our system. But going back to 15-20% uninsured isn't tenable, either. The best answer is to beef up Medicaid. Right now, under Obamacare, you are Medicaid eligible up to 135% of the poverty level. It should probably go to 150% or even 200% and that would make our overall numbers much better.

Where does the money come from? In my perfect world, it comes from our bloated defense budget. In real America, we are much more likely to die from lack of coverage than from terrorist boogiemen. In a non perfect world? It doesn't happen and we continue to have a lot of people not have coverage and that burdens the system and makes all the numbers worse.

TL;DR

Now this is a well though out answer.

The following two statements are true. 1. You need to have a profit motive to have good healthcare. 2. You can't have insurance CEO's in charge of healthcare.

How these two concepts get reconciled is the most difficult part of the process. I wish I had a well though out answer.

[hongkonger]

It's appalling. But the DNC is a private organization and can choose their nominee however they want. Parties used to choose at their conventions, up through the 60s. Not that this was better but just to make the point.

The EC is not private; it's part of the constitution and it happens to be a ridiculous relic of slavery. It's embarrassing that it still exists.

The only option that would ever pass is a Nebraska/Maine situation where delegates are appointed by Congressional district and the two left over delegates from the Senate would go to the State wide vote winner.

Small states would never ratify a change to the constitution other than that one.

Also, as a Democrat you should hope and pray that never happens as the chances of a Democrat winning the Presidency in the next 50 years would go to about zero.

I don't think going to straight popular vote screws small states. I know this is a common assumption but I disagree.

Candidates already don't go to small states where the outcome is certain, like the Dakotas and Wyoming. They do go to small states where it's been close in the last few elections, like NV, WV, IA, NH. They don't go to large states where the outcome is certain, like CA, TX and NY. I think there would be more attention paid to swing areas in both large and small states that currently get no attention because they're not likely to swing the whole state's vote--places like upstate NY, UT (Salt Lake City), MT, and suburban areas of AZ, GA and TX, and basically all of the south outside of FL.

I agree that eliminating the EC would shift the focus somewhat, but not in the way that's popularly assumed.

If it went to counting by congressional district, gerrymandering would have to be eliminated. There are many mathematical models for how to create equally populated, compact districts without regard to demographics.

[hongkonger]

You can get the best health care here. The reason for those stats is that moderately poor people don't have coverage, and that's the group that is most affected by the potential new Republican plan. So when someone says "America has the best health care" they really mean "you can get the best health care in America if you can afford it".

Looking at those stats, you'd think it would be obvious to people that we need some sort of national health care, especially for lower income people. This program is Medicaid and it's administered by the states but was the most important part of Obamacare, which put a large amount of federal money into the program. It's been a huge success, but like everything in the US, it is expensive. The tax savings in Trumpcare largely come from cutting Medicaid, which will make these stats even worse.

So, what's the answer on US health care? There isn't a good one. Profit is so entrenched that it's impossible to become like the other western countries. Single payer isn't going to happen and it really isn't even plausible with our system. But going back to 15-20% uninsured isn't tenable, either. The best answer is to beef up Medicaid. Right now, under Obamacare, you are Medicaid eligible up to 135% of the poverty level. It should probably go to 150% or even 200% and that would make our overall numbers much better.

Where does the money come from? In my perfect world, it comes from our bloated defense budget. In real America, we are much more likely to die from lack of coverage than from terrorist boogiemen. In a non perfect world? It doesn't happen and we continue to have a lot of people not have coverage and that burdens the system and makes all the numbers worse.

TL;DR

Now this is a well though out answer.

The following two statements are true. 1. You need to have a profit motive to have good healthcare. 2. You can't have insurance CEO's in charge of healthcare.

How these two concepts get reconciled is the most difficult part of the process. I wish I had a well though out answer.

By profit motive do you mean an Unlimited profit motive at whatever the market will bear or do you mean it just has to be worth it for the providers?

Because in countries with guaranteed national health care, doctors, pharma, device makers, insurers (in places where private insurance exists) are all still doing well. It's just not as insanely lucrative as in the US. And they have better overall health outcomes.

[NaturalBornHustler]

You can get the best health care here. The reason for those stats is that moderately poor people don't have coverage, and that's the group that is most affected by the potential new Republican plan. So when someone says "America has the best health care" they really mean "you can get the best health care in America if you can afford it".

Looking at those stats, you'd think it would be obvious to people that we need some sort of national health care, especially for lower income people. This program is Medicaid and it's administered by the states but was the most important part of Obamacare, which put a large amount of federal money into the program. It's been a huge success, but like everything in the US, it is expensive. The tax savings in Trumpcare largely come from cutting Medicaid, which will make these stats even worse.

So, what's the answer on US health care? There isn't a good one. Profit is so entrenched that it's impossible to become like the other western countries. Single payer isn't going to happen and it really isn't even plausible with our system. But going back to 15-20% uninsured isn't tenable, either. The best answer is to beef up Medicaid. Right now, under Obamacare, you are Medicaid eligible up to 135% of the poverty level. It should probably go to 150% or even 200% and that would make our overall numbers much better.

Where does the money come from? In my perfect world, it comes from our bloated defense budget. In real America, we are much more likely to die from lack of coverage than from terrorist boogiemen. In a non perfect world? It doesn't happen and we continue to have a lot of people not have coverage and that burdens the system and makes all the numbers worse.

TL;DR

I actually agree with most of this..

If your productive tax payer making from 18k to 50k.. you are basically fucked..

More fucked then a baby momma or an illigal immigrant..

50k? Shit you better double that.

How the hell is a person making 100k taking home 60k going to afford $1500 a month?

They can't. Unless they want to be working until they die.

The rich can afford it. The poor are given it. Literally ANYONE in between that is getting bent over. Those "working class people" the Dems fight for every day. Yeah fucking right.

[LegallyNonBindingPosts]

if we can get cnn to show these pics and comment on liar in chief's fat ass.

we would be betting on o/u before cheeto jesus holds a news conference about his small ass.

[LegallyNonBindingPosts]

secretary munchkin marries teenager

[hongkonger]

secretary munchkin marries teenager

Melania's face looks like it is being stretched back with string.

[Tellafriend]

secretary munchkin marries teenager

Melania's face looks like it is being stretched back with string.

She's hot as fuck. You are just tilted. Go jack off to Hilldabeast.

[hongkonger]

Melania's face looks like it is being stretched back with string.

She's hot as fuck. You are just tilted. Go jack off to Hilldabeast.

Not tilted. Hillary is worse looking obv. Give me Jackie Kennedy -300 over any other First Lady.

[tyde]

She's hot as fuck. You are just tilted. Go jack off to Hilldabeast.

Not tilted. Hillary is worse looking obv. Give me Jackie Kennedy -300 over any other First Lady.

LMAO

UMMMMM

ACTUALLY YES YOU ARE FAGGOT

YOU ARE IN THIS THREAD 24/7 RED REPPING AND MAKING YOUR ASININE POSTS NON STOP

THE TRUTH IS THAT YOU ARE MORE TILTED THAN PRETTY MUCH ANYBODY IN THIS THREAD

YOU POST 25 TIMES A DAY ABOUT TRUMP

HE IS IN YOUR LIBTARD HEAD

PERIOD

HOLY SHIT YOU'RE SUCH A MASSIVE LOSER

[MumblesBadly]

She's hot as fuck. You are just tilted. Go jack off to Hilldabeast.

Not tilted. Hillary is worse looking obv. Give me Jackie Kennedy -300 over any other First Lady.

Really? Not Eleanor Roosevelt?



Huh.