Page 4 of 81 FirstFirst 123456781454 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 1612

Thread: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

  1. #61
    100% Organic MumblesBadly's Avatar
    Reputation
    85
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    In the many threads of this forum
    Posts
    8,993
    sah_24: Both teams red and blue fucked us on that ... there is literally 0 difference

    Uh... Not quite. The Dems lead by Obama passed Dodd-Frank, which the GOP is working tooth-and-nail to dismantle.

    But looking forward, there are several huge issues where the Dems differ significantly from the GOP. And Progressives like AOC are leading the charge to make the difference on a key issue many ordinary voters care about: Health insurance reform.

    Why? Progressives know that a strong majority of ordinary voters would welcome Medicare-for-All. And recent polling show that even majority of *Republican* voters, albeit a slim majority, now would, too,



    Name:  70305B23-9F70-4E88-A32E-B645F9EB8712.png
Views: 499
Size:  640.9 KB

    The GOP is deadset against it, while the Dems are currently internally battling over this issue because the major donors of the establishment Dems also don’t want it. But as Progessives like AOC gain ground within the party by upsetting establishment Dems in primaries, and making inroads in currently red congressional districts, the Dem Party will come around to making Medicare-for-All a winning issue to run on.

    And that time may be sooner than many pundits have predicted, especially when extensive research funded by the Koch brothers that was meant to discredit it has recently shown that it would overall save a MASSIVE amount of money, potentially even more than what Bernie Sanders had been claiming.


     
    Comments
      
      sah_24: You are the dumbest poster in history of the internet ... literally down syndrome
      
      RS_: Posting TYT.....Down syndrome confirmed
    Last edited by MumblesBadly; 08-26-2018 at 03:46 PM.
    _____________________________________________
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    I actually hope this [second impeachment] succeeds, because I want Trump put down politically like a sick, 14-year-old dog. ... I don't want him complicating the 2024 primary season. I just want him done.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Were Republicans cowardly or unethical not to go along with [convicting Trump in the second impeachment Senate trial]? No. The smart move was to reject it.

  2. #62
    Gold sah_24's Avatar
    Reputation
    -79
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Laclede
    Posts
    1,047
    Blog Entries
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by MumblesBadly View Post
    sah_24: Both teams red and blue fucked us on that ... there is literally 0 difference

    Uh... Not quite. The Dems lead by Obama passed Dodd-Frank, which the GOP is working tooth-and-nail to dismantle.

    But looking forward, there are several huge issues where the Dems differ significantly from the GOP. And Progressives like AOC are leading the charge to make the difference on a key issue many ordinary voters care about: Health insurance reform.

    Why? Progressives know that a strong majority of ordinary voters would welcome Medicare-for-All. And recent polling show that even majority of *Republican* voters, albeit a slim majority, now would, too,



    Name:  70305B23-9F70-4E88-A32E-B645F9EB8712.png
Views: 499
Size:  640.9 KB

    The GOP is deadset against it, while the Dems are currently internally battling over this issue because the major donors of the establishment Dems also donít want it. But as Progessives like AOC gain ground within the party by upsetting establishment Dems in primaries, and making inroads in currently red congressional districts, the Dem Party will come around to making Medicare-for-All a winning issue to run on.

    And that time may be sooner than many pundits have predicted, especially when extensive research funded by the Koch brothers that was meant to discredit it has recently shown that it would overall save a MASSIVE amount of money, potentially even more than what Bernie Sanders had been claiming.

    Ya 32 trillion gonna save a ton of money luls Ö holy shit how can you be this fucking dumb

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by sah_24 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MumblesBadly View Post
    sah_24: Both teams red and blue fucked us on that ... there is literally 0 difference

    Uh... Not quite. The Dems lead by Obama passed Dodd-Frank, which the GOP is working tooth-and-nail to dismantle.

    But looking forward, there are several huge issues where the Dems differ significantly from the GOP. And Progressives like AOC are leading the charge to make the difference on a key issue many ordinary voters care about: Health insurance reform.

    Why? Progressives know that a strong majority of ordinary voters would welcome Medicare-for-All. And recent polling show that even majority of *Republican* voters, albeit a slim majority, now would, too,



    Name:  70305B23-9F70-4E88-A32E-B645F9EB8712.png
Views: 499
Size:  640.9 KB

    The GOP is deadset against it, while the Dems are currently internally battling over this issue because the major donors of the establishment Dems also don’t want it. But as Progessives like AOC gain ground within the party by upsetting establishment Dems in primaries, and making inroads in currently red congressional districts, the Dem Party will come around to making Medicare-for-All a winning issue to run on.

    And that time may be sooner than many pundits have predicted, especially when extensive research funded by the Koch brothers that was meant to discredit it has recently shown that it would overall save a MASSIVE amount of money, potentially even more than what Bernie Sanders had been claiming.

    Ya 32 trillion gonna save a ton of money luls … holy shit how can you be this fucking dumb

    No one is disputing we’ll spend more than $32 trillion over the next 10 years already. You literally picked the one part that both the right and left agree on. That we’ll spend over that amount. The GOP argument is that Sanders plan won’t be able to hold at that $32 trlllion number, because if it can hold at that number, it will be cheaper.

     
    Comments
      
      sah_24: LULS
      
      MumblesBadly: Stem the Red Rooster!

  4. #64
    Let me lay some truth bombs on everyone since it appears the majority of this website is 50+ years old and stuck in 1974.

    The estimates for medicare for all's cost is all everyone is focusing on. They're completely ignoring the fact that:

    a. You can still buy private insurance if you really want to, and yes it will be costly, and yes those companies will pay taxes earning some of the money back. The quality of care might be a little bit better and a bit more private but it will be suitable for all people that don't regularly drink martini's with gold flakes in them.

    b. The per capita spending on healthcare in the US is approaching (or has past) $10,000 USD per year. If we cut that in just half by implementing universal health care that brings a yearly savings of about $1.75 trillion. At the $32 trillion estimate that puts at about a net loss of $1.5 trillion per year. But wait! that's $1.75 trillion dollars back in the pockets of the american citizens that will take that money and spend it on stupid shit, because you all know you do, which will then be taxed and probably 20% of that will come back. Meaning a net loss per year of only $1.15 trillion (and remember again, these are all estimates and personally I think the $32 trillion number is just silly in reality loss will probably be around $500 billion per year). But wait there's more!

    c. Once this is well established the costs will probably go down with respect to inflation as there will be a stronger hold on the pharmaceutical industry. I think all parties can agree, other than people who work for pharmaceutical companies, that they're the biggest crooks in all of this. So in reality, I would guess that within 50 years it would actually be profitable to USA to implement universal healthcare.

    Let's drop a little more truth bombs while we're at. As much as you geezers like to laugh and point and say "The democratic party is dying", I think it's time to take a look in the mirror at the Republican party which is quite literally dying.

    1. You guys have spoke a bit about how the younger generation just isn't sold on the Republican party, and this is true. Very very true. Even some of the most die hard Republicans I've known at my age are actually now centrists or even Democrats. The reason? More people have more access to more information and are starting to see that a lot of the things the Republican party are saying is wrong or not viable is totally and utterly incorrect. Universal healthcare (possible), free education (possible), reasonable working conditions (possible), not having to go to war to be able to afford shit (possible), maternity/paternity leave + reasonable amounts of time off (possible), trickle down not working (confirmed), etc etc etc.

    2. Even the older generation is waking up to it!

    I don't disagree that the Democratic party is a total mess right now, but the fact is the Republicans are stuck in 1974 and their due date is approaching rapidly. In the future I think there's going to be as many 4 parties. Traditional Democrats, Socialists, Federalists, and Capitalists. The Republican and Democratic parties are going to split off if they don't start getting their shit together, with the Republicans just flat out being gone. There's too much progress that needs to be made, to keep that same style of mentality they have right now, it's going to end.

    I think overall by 2100 the following will be true:

    1. There will be very minimal actual soldiers, and the ones there are will rarely be deployed.

    2. Guns will be outlawed or heavily restricted to items such as rifles

    3. For all you crying about number 2 with "omg cars kill people too why not outlaw cars". Welcome to the grandest of all my predictions. Bye bye being able to drive a vehicle on public property. That's right you may own a car (and some exceptions may be made for farmers but by then I think it won't be necessary) but that car will not be capable of being manually operated. There will be no steering wheel other than possibly a safety mechanism that can be manually turned in case of an emergency and the vehicle will be locked into neutral.

    4. Education will be free, and with the exception of a few major universities, most universities will be gone or on life support because it will be replaced with open sourced learning materials. Which brings me to my next point.

    5. We will be approaching a point where blue collar jobs are essentially gone. Learning will become a necessity if you want to actually work or create something.

    Call me crazy, whatever I don't care. These things are just what's going to happen. The paths for these things have already been set forth and can't be stopped. Down vote this to hell, I don't really care. Just do me a favor and print this out, hand it to your grandkids in 2050, point towards my grave and tell them to piss on it if I'm wrong in 2100. I know you'll all complain and say some stupid shit like "money doesn't work that way" or "but then everyone will be unemployed!". Yeah yeah yeah, you think money doesn't work that way, the truth is none of you fucking understand how money works. And yeah most of the world will be unemployed, but it doesn't mean shit at the end of the day because Jeff Bezos's grandkids will be sitting on top of $10 Trillion dollars they can't spend, and everyone will be able to live their life the way they want without worrying about if their light bulb will turn on when they get home.

     
    Comments
      
      sah_24: go back to math class ... you failed
      
      Zap_the_Fractions_Giraffe: didn't read
      
      FPS_Russia: Hey crazy, we're gonna collapse like the Soviet Union. Can't you hear that sucking sound from the Pentagon?
      
      GambleBotsSatire: christmas
    Last edited by anonamoose; 08-27-2018 at 03:31 AM. Reason: some mild non eye bleeding edits and my last point

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by anonamoose View Post
    Let me lay some truth bombs on everyone since it appears the majority of this website is 50+ years old and stuck in 1974.

    The estimates for medicare for all's cost is all everyone is focusing on. They're completely ignoring the fact that:

    a. You can still buy private insurance if you really want to, and yes it will be costly, and yes those companies will pay taxes earning some of the money back. The quality of care might be a little bit better and a bit more private but it will be suitable for all people that don't regularly drink martini's with gold flakes in them.

    b. The per capita spending on healthcare in the US is approaching (or has past) $10,000 USD per year. If we cut that in just half by implementing universal health care that brings a yearly savings of about $1.75 trillion. At the $32 trillion estimate that puts at about a net loss of $1.5 trillion per year. But wait! that's $1.75 trillion dollars back in the pockets of the american citizens that will take that money and spend it on stupid shit, because you all know you do, which will then be taxed and probably 20% of that will come back. Meaning a net loss per year of only $1.15 trillion (and remember again, these are all estimates and personally I think the $32 trillion number is just silly in reality loss will probably be around $500 billion per year). But wait there's more!

    c. Once this is well established the costs will probably go down with respect to inflation as there will be a stronger hold on the pharmaceutical industry. I think all parties can agree, other than people who work for pharmaceutical companies, that they're the biggest crooks in all of this. So in reality, I would guess that within 50 years it would actually be profitable to USA to implement universal healthcare.
    Lulz do you actually believe what you wrote here?

    a. Literally, there will become two classes of care. Private care and public care, this happens anywhere in the world where both are open. Guess what happens? You have two classes of people, people who receive care timely and at a higher standard and those made to wait and receive a lower quality of care.

    b. Lulz half ..... FUCKING lulz .... FUCKING HALF hahhahahahahahahahaahahahahahhahaha. United Healthcare the largest insurance company in the world operates on 5% net margins. 5%!!!!! 5 FUCKING PERCENT. You are talking about reducing average spend from $10,000 to $9,500 or what you are talking about doing is changing reimbursements to Doctors to Medicare levels. Which basically means paying Doctors, Nurses, CNAs, administrators, Medical Asisstants, etc. etc etc a lot less, also while putting a half million insurance company workers out of work. So Doctors, RNs, etc the best people in those fields will find jobs in the future doing something else because the pay will be lower, plus you will raise unemployment in the country by .4% right now. Don't forget the long term ramifications of having stupider people provider care because the smartest people will go to Silicon Valley or investment banking or something else. Long term effects would be reduced innovation, reduced quality of life and reduced life span.

    c. Lulz if you think putting significant price controls on pharma companies will still create innovation. R&D will tank, we will have less new drugs, the world will become sicker.


    Now, do you want a real plant to solve the health care crisis in America? How about working on a health bill.

    You see Obamacare, Medicare For All, etc. these are fucking tax and who is going to pay for it bills, they aren't health bills.

    The only thing that fixes costs in America is to pass a health bill. You can't fix high insurance costs if you don't fix the fatty problem. We got a lot of fatties, a crazy amount of fatties. Type 2 diabetes alone makes up more than 20% of healthcare costs in America. Some estimates when you include secondary causes put that number near 50%. Also, you see $60-70 billion in lost worker productivity due to the fatties missing work because of being sick.

    If you want to fix insurance and sky high health care costs fix the fatties. Here's a simple guide to fixing the fatty problem.

    1. Start teaching health from Elementary school on.

    2. Provide kids more organized time around health, learning Columbus to the Civil War every year from K-8th grade has no value, but spending 30 extra minutes per day working out has a lifetime net positive on a kids outcome.

    3. Get the Ag industry out of nutrition policy and create a health pyramid that is actually healthy (mostly protein and vegetable based)

    4. Tax incentivize getting healthy (deductible gym memberships, bonus deductions for losing weight and keeping it off)

    5. Tax penalize those who make no effort to get better (reduced Medicaid / Medicare benefits, fatty tax, etc.)

     
    Comments
      
      FPS_Russia: Greasy, sleazy and FOS

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by abrown83 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by anonamoose View Post
    Let me lay some truth bombs on everyone since it appears the majority of this website is 50+ years old and stuck in 1974.

    The estimates for medicare for all's cost is all everyone is focusing on. They're completely ignoring the fact that:

    a. You can still buy private insurance if you really want to, and yes it will be costly, and yes those companies will pay taxes earning some of the money back. The quality of care might be a little bit better and a bit more private but it will be suitable for all people that don't regularly drink martini's with gold flakes in them.

    b. The per capita spending on healthcare in the US is approaching (or has past) $10,000 USD per year. If we cut that in just half by implementing universal health care that brings a yearly savings of about $1.75 trillion. At the $32 trillion estimate that puts at about a net loss of $1.5 trillion per year. But wait! that's $1.75 trillion dollars back in the pockets of the american citizens that will take that money and spend it on stupid shit, because you all know you do, which will then be taxed and probably 20% of that will come back. Meaning a net loss per year of only $1.15 trillion (and remember again, these are all estimates and personally I think the $32 trillion number is just silly in reality loss will probably be around $500 billion per year). But wait there's more!

    c. Once this is well established the costs will probably go down with respect to inflation as there will be a stronger hold on the pharmaceutical industry. I think all parties can agree, other than people who work for pharmaceutical companies, that they're the biggest crooks in all of this. So in reality, I would guess that within 50 years it would actually be profitable to USA to implement universal healthcare.
    Lulz do you actually believe what you wrote here?

    a. Literally, there will become two classes of care. Private care and public care, this happens anywhere in the world where both are open. Guess what happens? You have two classes of people, people who receive care timely and at a higher standard and those made to wait and receive a lower quality of care.

    b. Lulz half ..... FUCKING lulz .... FUCKING HALF hahhahahahahahahahaahahahahahhahaha. United Healthcare the largest insurance company in the world operates on 5% net margins. 5%!!!!! 5 FUCKING PERCENT. You are talking about reducing average spend from $10,000 to $9,500 or what you are talking about doing is changing reimbursements to Doctors to Medicare levels. Which basically means paying Doctors, Nurses, CNAs, administrators, Medical Asisstants, etc. etc etc a lot less, also while putting a half million insurance company workers out of work. So Doctors, RNs, etc the best people in those fields will find jobs in the future doing something else because the pay will be lower, plus you will raise unemployment in the country by .4% right now. Don't forget the long term ramifications of having stupider people provider care because the smartest people will go to Silicon Valley or investment banking or something else. Long term effects would be reduced innovation, reduced quality of life and reduced life span.

    c. Lulz if you think putting significant price controls on pharma companies will still create innovation. R&D will tank, we will have less new drugs, the world will become sicker.


    Now, do you want a real plant to solve the health care crisis in America? How about working on a health bill.

    You see Obamacare, Medicare For All, etc. these are fucking tax and who is going to pay for it bills, they aren't health bills.

    The only thing that fixes costs in America is to pass a health bill. You can't fix high insurance costs if you don't fix the fatty problem. We got a lot of fatties, a crazy amount of fatties. Type 2 diabetes alone makes up more than 20% of healthcare costs in America. Some estimates when you include secondary causes put that number near 50%. Also, you see $60-70 billion in lost worker productivity due to the fatties missing work because of being sick.

    If you want to fix insurance and sky high health care costs fix the fatties. Here's a simple guide to fixing the fatty problem.

    1. Start teaching health from Elementary school on.

    2. Provide kids more organized time around health, learning Columbus to the Civil War every year from K-8th grade has no value, but spending 30 extra minutes per day working out has a lifetime net positive on a kids outcome.

    3. Get the Ag industry out of nutrition policy and create a health pyramid that is actually healthy (mostly protein and vegetable based)

    4. Tax incentivize getting healthy (deductible gym memberships, bonus deductions for losing weight and keeping it off)

    5. Tax penalize those who make no effort to get better (reduced Medicaid / Medicare benefits, fatty tax, etc.)
    Literally everyone who agrees, in political power, with your stance that we have better health care and shouldn’t implement single payer(which is debatable, we clearly have better research) would be the ones who fight and kill every solution you put forward. A city decides to tax soft drinks and they lose their minds and consider it an insult to freedom. That type of comprehensive approach to lessening obesity would have the same reaction as outlawing the Bible.

    I agree with you for the record and have advocated subsidizing healthy lifestyle and healthy food for years here.
    Last edited by BCR; 08-27-2018 at 04:20 AM.

  7. #67
    100% Organic MumblesBadly's Avatar
    Reputation
    85
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    In the many threads of this forum
    Posts
    8,993
    Quote Originally Posted by abrown83 View Post
    3. Get the Ag industry out of nutrition policy and create a health pyramid that is actually healthy (mostly protein and vegetable based)
    If the Cabinet was staffed by typical Trump supporters.

    _____________________________________________
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    I actually hope this [second impeachment] succeeds, because I want Trump put down politically like a sick, 14-year-old dog. ... I don't want him complicating the 2024 primary season. I just want him done.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Were Republicans cowardly or unethical not to go along with [convicting Trump in the second impeachment Senate trial]? No. The smart move was to reject it.

  8. #68
    Platinum thesparten's Avatar
    Reputation
    -13
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    3,590
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by MumblesBadly View Post
    sah_24: Both teams red and blue fucked us on that ... there is literally 0 difference

    Uh... Not quite. The Dems lead by Obama passed Dodd-Frank, which the GOP is working tooth-and-nail to dismantle.

    But looking forward, there are several huge issues where the Dems differ significantly from the GOP. And Progressives like AOC are leading the charge to make the difference on a key issue many ordinary voters care about: Health insurance reform.

    Why? Progressives know that a strong majority of ordinary voters would welcome Medicare-for-All. And recent polling show that even majority of *Republican* voters, albeit a slim majority, now would, too,



    Name:  70305B23-9F70-4E88-A32E-B645F9EB8712.png
Views: 499
Size:  640.9 KB

    The GOP is deadset against it, while the Dems are currently internally battling over this issue because the major donors of the establishment Dems also donít want it. But as Progessives like AOC gain ground within the party by upsetting establishment Dems in primaries, and making inroads in currently red congressional districts, the Dem Party will come around to making Medicare-for-All a winning issue to run on.

    And that time may be sooner than many pundits have predicted, especially when extensive research funded by the Koch brothers that was meant to discredit it has recently shown that it would overall save a MASSIVE amount of money, potentially even more than what Bernie Sanders had been claiming.

    What???

    I live in the Bronx, most of my friends over the decades are black band Hispanic..

    Nobody wants Medicare for all... Lol..

    We all want it shut down..

    That's just the narrative the libtards and the media with the D.N.C. Are pushing..

    Negotiate drug prices..
    .
    Cross state lines competition..

    Allow individuals to creat groups..

    That SIMPLE fix would create a high quality affordable private health care system which would be the most fair for the most people and keeping it a high quality....(Medicare should be stopped or starved)

    Thank you very much..

     
    Comments
      
      MumblesBadly: LOL that you and your friends can even *find* the voting location in your precinct in between coming down from tweeking!

  9. #69
    100% Organic MumblesBadly's Avatar
    Reputation
    85
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    In the many threads of this forum
    Posts
    8,993
    Here’s another big issue the working and middle class care about that the GOP is fucking them over about: predatory for-profit universities tricking the desparate into taking mostly worthless college courses funded by federal-subsidized student loans their post-coursework job prospects have zero chance of enabling them to repay.

    The Dems under Obama provided a mechanism for relief for the worst abuses in that market with the establishment of a special department of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, but the GOP loves that Team Trump has gutted that mechanism.

    Nation’s Top Student Loan Official Resigns

    “The damage you have done to the Bureau betrays these families and sacrifices the financial futures of millions of Americans in communities across the country,” Seth Frotman said.

    https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5...0cd327dfea0b2s

    NEW YORK — The top government official overseeing the $1.5 trillion student loan market resigned Monday, citing what he says is the White House’s open hostility toward protecting the nation’s millions of student loan borrowers.

    Seth Frotman will be stepping down from his position as student loan ombudsman at the end of the week, according to his resignation letter which was obtained by The Associated Press. He held that position since 2016.

    Frotman is the latest high-level departure from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau since Mick Mulvaney, President Donald Trump’s budget director who has been also acting director of the bureau, took over in late November.

    Under Mulvaney, the bureau has scaled back its enforcement work and has proposed revising or rescinding all of the rules and regulations it put into place under the Obama administration. Mulvaney downgraded the mission of Frotman’s student loan office and moved it the umbrella of consumer education instead of enforcement.

    “The damage you have done to the Bureau betrays these families and sacrifices the financial futures of millions of Americans in communities across the country,” Frotman said.

    Congress specifically created the student loan ombudsman office when it created the CFPB. A previous occupant of that position is Rohit Chopra, who is now a commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission.

    The position is quite powerful, able to work with the bureau’s enforcement staff to specifically target bad behavior in the student loan market. The office has returned $750 million to harmed student loan borrowers since its creation.

     
    Comments
      
      sah_24: worst poster in history of the internet
    _____________________________________________
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    I actually hope this [second impeachment] succeeds, because I want Trump put down politically like a sick, 14-year-old dog. ... I don't want him complicating the 2024 primary season. I just want him done.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Were Republicans cowardly or unethical not to go along with [convicting Trump in the second impeachment Senate trial]? No. The smart move was to reject it.

  10. #70
    i want to have sex with her

     
    Comments
      
      MumblesBadly: You get seduced by the Democratic Socialist Side?

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by thesparten View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MumblesBadly View Post
    sah_24: Both teams red and blue fucked us on that ... there is literally 0 difference

    Uh... Not quite. The Dems lead by Obama passed Dodd-Frank, which the GOP is working tooth-and-nail to dismantle.

    But looking forward, there are several huge issues where the Dems differ significantly from the GOP. And Progressives like AOC are leading the charge to make the difference on a key issue many ordinary voters care about: Health insurance reform.

    Why? Progressives know that a strong majority of ordinary voters would welcome Medicare-for-All. And recent polling show that even majority of *Republican* voters, albeit a slim majority, now would, too,



    Name:  70305B23-9F70-4E88-A32E-B645F9EB8712.png
Views: 499
Size:  640.9 KB

    The GOP is deadset against it, while the Dems are currently internally battling over this issue because the major donors of the establishment Dems also donít want it. But as Progessives like AOC gain ground within the party by upsetting establishment Dems in primaries, and making inroads in currently red congressional districts, the Dem Party will come around to making Medicare-for-All a winning issue to run on.

    And that time may be sooner than many pundits have predicted, especially when extensive research funded by the Koch brothers that was meant to discredit it has recently shown that it would overall save a MASSIVE amount of money, potentially even more than what Bernie Sanders had been claiming.

    What???

    I live in the Bronx, most of my friends over the decades are black band Hispanic..

    Nobody wants Medicare for all... Lol..

    We all want it shut down..

    That's just the narrative the libtards and the media with the D.N.C. Are pushing..

    Negotiate drug prices..
    .
    Cross state lines competition..

    Allow individuals to creat groups..

    That SIMPLE fix would create a high quality affordable private health care system which would be the most fair for the most people and keeping it a high quality....(Medicare should be stopped or starved)

    Thank you very much..



    Youíre a fiftyish crack smoker. The free market would charge you $20k a month, appropriately, given the expected health expenditures for a fiftyish crack smoker. That would presumably price you out of the market, and the taxpayer would end up covering your eventual heart attack. That is how we arrived at Obamacare in the first place.

     
    Comments
      
      RealTalk: HOF
      
      MumblesBadly: The markets were hardly even free with local medical boards and insurance industry-coopted state regulators, but don’t tell conservotards that.

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by abrown83 View Post
    Lulz do you actually believe what you wrote here?

    a. Literally, there will become two classes of care. Private care and public care, this happens anywhere in the world where both are open. Guess what happens? You have two classes of people, people who receive care timely and at a higher standard and those made to wait and receive a lower quality of care.

    b. Lulz half ..... FUCKING lulz .... FUCKING HALF hahhahahahahahahahaahahahahahhahaha. United Healthcare the largest insurance company in the world operates on 5% net margins. 5%!!!!! 5 FUCKING PERCENT. You are talking about reducing average spend from $10,000 to $9,500 or what you are talking about doing is changing reimbursements to Doctors to Medicare levels. Which basically means paying Doctors, Nurses, CNAs, administrators, Medical Asisstants, etc. etc etc a lot less, also while putting a half million insurance company workers out of work. So Doctors, RNs, etc the best people in those fields will find jobs in the future doing something else because the pay will be lower, plus you will raise unemployment in the country by .4% right now. Don't forget the long term ramifications of having stupider people provider care because the smartest people will go to Silicon Valley or investment banking or something else. Long term effects would be reduced innovation, reduced quality of life and reduced life span.

    c. Lulz if you think putting significant price controls on pharma companies will still create innovation. R&D will tank, we will have less new drugs, the world will become sicker.

    a: I never realized 5% margin was so high!

    Australia 4,186 4,289 4,493 4,708
    United States 8,616 9,036 9,507 9,892

    Come on man try harder.

    5% margin also includes operating costs, the true margin on individuals from an underwriting perspective actually as high as 50% in some cases but typically 20-30%.

    b: More laughing at something you obviously don't understand. I've been living in Hong Kong the last 3 years. They have public healthcare here which I qualify for. I go to a doctor and get antibiotics, I see the doctor within 1 hour and it costs me a grand total of 20 USD, no private insurance. I go to the ER because someone hacked off my arm or I got into a car accident, I go in right away past the people there because they have a slight cough it costs me 20 USD for entry and 10 USD per night to stay, no insurance. The only difference between public and private healthcare here is that with public you get a public room, with private you get a private room. I'm sorry but if I need a hip replacement surgery, it will cost me under 100 USD. I may have to wait a few months, but it's a lot better than spending 100 USD A MONTH on private healthcare, wait 2 weeks, then pay a $8000 USD deductible. I think sucking it up through the pain is a ok in my book there. If you want to pay that, it's your right. If I was born with diabetes I'm not shafted with a 200 USD+ per month payment and still have to pay up to several thousand dollars a year every year for the rest of my life. And guess what!? THERE'S NO FUCKING WAIT TO GET DIABETES MEDICATION. Sorry that it seems to shatter your perspective on life that non serious non life threatening things can wait for most people if it means they can eat food today. Sorry if your perspective is that the government can't afford it (because they can). Actually, let's keep right on this. Do you know what the tax rate in Hong Kong is? It's like 10-15%. You know what the US is? I'm pretty sure you do since you curse Uncle Sam every time you see your pay check. So let me reiterate some of the facts here:
    1. Costs less FOR EVERYONE
    2. People in immediate need get immediate care
    3. People not in immediate need have to wait a little bit so they can still afford to eat
    4. Our tax is significantly less
    AND this is the other fact will blow your mind
    5. The Hong Kong government collected so much money in taxes last year, they were in profit and gave everyone a pretty hefty tax refund for next.

    OMG UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE IS SO COSTLY THE GOVERNMENT MAKES MONEY.

    c: R&D will tank. Get fucked dude, there's no evidence that increased drug prices produce better R&D in the pharmaceutical field because most of this is done via some poor post grad trying to get tenure in a University. The money the pharmaceutical companies spends is swooping in and buying rights to it, or patent trolling people.

     
    Comments
      
      MumblesBadly: But the healthcare industry profits, including the ridiculous amount specialists in the US make, must be protected at all costs!!!

  13. #73
    File this one under Democracy is sham.

    The bartender who unseated an incumbent huh.

    Her glowing eulogy of one of the most notorious traitors in history is all you need to know.
    Interesting conversation in the comments. She said this about her time Niger
    "Our security was a high priority for the U.S. Embassy and of our Nigerien friends and host families, and I never doubted their abilities to take care of us.”
    The program was originally suspended for the 2010 spring semester because of a State Department Travel Alert, which was made after the kidnapping of two United Nations officials by member of al-Qaida.
    SHOCKER!


    Go live there among the people with no extra security before you advocate moving the whole country here, dumb ass bitch.
    Name:  DmCIz-hW0AA0B-K.jpg
Views: 309
Size:  116.8 KB
    Name:  DmCGp1KW0AMyEQR.jpg
Views: 290
Size:  85.1 KB
    Cheney

    Remember how McCain supposedly fucked Obama on his SCOTUS nom.

    Arrest everyone in attendance, that would be draining the swamp.
    Last edited by FPS_Russia; 09-02-2018 at 03:40 PM.

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by anonamoose View Post
    Let me lay some truth bombs on everyone since it appears the majority of this website is 50+ years old and stuck in 1974.

    The estimates for medicare for all's cost is all everyone is focusing on. They're completely ignoring the fact that:

    a. You can still buy private insurance if you really want to, and yes it will be costly, and yes those companies will pay taxes earning some of the money back. The quality of care might be a little bit better and a bit more private but it will be suitable for all people that don't regularly drink martini's with gold flakes in them.

    b. The per capita spending on healthcare in the US is approaching (or has past) $10,000 USD per year. If we cut that in just half by implementing universal health care that brings a yearly savings of about $1.75 trillion. At the $32 trillion estimate that puts at about a net loss of $1.5 trillion per year. But wait! that's $1.75 trillion dollars back in the pockets of the american citizens that will take that money and spend it on stupid shit, because you all know you do, which will then be taxed and probably 20% of that will come back. Meaning a net loss per year of only $1.15 trillion (and remember again, these are all estimates and personally I think the $32 trillion number is just silly in reality loss will probably be around $500 billion per year). But wait there's more!

    c. Once this is well established the costs will probably go down with respect to inflation as there will be a stronger hold on the pharmaceutical industry. I think all parties can agree, other than people who work for pharmaceutical companies, that they're the biggest crooks in all of this. So in reality, I would guess that within 50 years it would actually be profitable to USA to implement universal healthcare.

    Let's drop a little more truth bombs while we're at. As much as you geezers like to laugh and point and say "The democratic party is dying", I think it's time to take a look in the mirror at the Republican party which is quite literally dying.

    1. You guys have spoke a bit about how the younger generation just isn't sold on the Republican party, and this is true. Very very true. Even some of the most die hard Republicans I've known at my age are actually now centrists or even Democrats. The reason? More people have more access to more information and are starting to see that a lot of the things the Republican party are saying is wrong or not viable is totally and utterly incorrect. Universal healthcare (possible), free education (possible), reasonable working conditions (possible), not having to go to war to be able to afford shit (possible), maternity/paternity leave + reasonable amounts of time off (possible), trickle down not working (confirmed), etc etc etc.

    2. Even the older generation is waking up to it!

    I don't disagree that the Democratic party is a total mess right now, but the fact is the Republicans are stuck in 1974 and their due date is approaching rapidly. In the future I think there's going to be as many 4 parties. Traditional Democrats, Socialists, Federalists, and Capitalists. The Republican and Democratic parties are going to split off if they don't start getting their shit together, with the Republicans just flat out being gone. There's too much progress that needs to be made, to keep that same style of mentality they have right now, it's going to end.

    I think overall by 2100 the following will be true:

    1. There will be very minimal actual soldiers, and the ones there are will rarely be deployed.

    2. Guns will be outlawed or heavily restricted to items such as rifles

    3. For all you crying about number 2 with "omg cars kill people too why not outlaw cars". Welcome to the grandest of all my predictions. Bye bye being able to drive a vehicle on public property. That's right you may own a car (and some exceptions may be made for farmers but by then I think it won't be necessary) but that car will not be capable of being manually operated. There will be no steering wheel other than possibly a safety mechanism that can be manually turned in case of an emergency and the vehicle will be locked into neutral.

    4. Education will be free, and with the exception of a few major universities, most universities will be gone or on life support because it will be replaced with open sourced learning materials. Which brings me to my next point.

    5. We will be approaching a point where blue collar jobs are essentially gone. Learning will become a necessity if you want to actually work or create something.

    Call me crazy, whatever I don't care. These things are just what's going to happen. The paths for these things have already been set forth and can't be stopped. Down vote this to hell, I don't really care. Just do me a favor and print this out, hand it to your grandkids in 2050, point towards my grave and tell them to piss on it if I'm wrong in 2100. I know you'll all complain and say some stupid shit like "money doesn't work that way" or "but then everyone will be unemployed!". Yeah yeah yeah, you think money doesn't work that way, the truth is none of you fucking understand how money works. And yeah most of the world will be unemployed, but it doesn't mean shit at the end of the day because Jeff Bezos's grandkids will be sitting on top of $10 Trillion dollars they can't spend, and everyone will be able to live their life the way they want without worrying about if their light bulb will turn on when they get home.
    everything you are talking about are Social Welfare Programs...the goal of these programs are to correct the inequities of capitalism...there are a number of welfare programs already in place (social security, medicare, disability insurance, mandatory worker's compensation insurance, unemployment insurance).

    supporters of the new proposed welfare programs are not calling for the pure socialist model of government ownership of the means of production...

    dangerously semi-smart people such as the owner of this site don't show an understanding of the difference between social welfare & pure socialism (perhaps deliberately misleading?)...the semi-smart are quick to spew "Socialism!!" or "Communist!!" Please, let's be precise so we can have an intelligent discussion without the egotistic "I know better than you" arguments.
    Last edited by GrenadaRoger; 09-02-2018 at 06:43 PM.
    (long before there was a PFA i had my Grenade & Crossbones avatar at DD)

  15. #75
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    7269
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    44,980
    Blog Entries
    2
    LOL at Universal Health Care cutting down US healthcare costs.

    No.

    The main cost of US healthcare comes from tests and procedures. The left likes to push the myth that cutting out the insurance middleman will produce huge savings, but that's a drop in the bucket compared to what is actually paid to medical providers, hospitals, and test facilities.

    What aboug Big Pharma? That's some of the problem, but not the main part of it. The pharmaceutical cost can be brought under control far more easily than the cost of the rest of US healthcare. Simply introduce the ability to order pharmaceuticals from other first world countries, and the prices in the US will plummet.

    Healthcare in the US is so expensive for various reasons:

    1) The pricing model is opaque. The patient has no idea what services he's buying (or what they cost) until after he has them, and receives a bill. Furthermore, in the cases where insurance pays all or most of the bill, the patient doesn't care about the cost anyway.

    2) There are no free market forces at work. Doctors and facilities are for what they do, not how well they do it. There is little financial incentive for a doctor to do a good job, but big financial incentives to see large numbers of patients and creatively bill for as many expensive things as possible.

    3) The pricing model is driven by Medicare. That's the benchmark insurance companies use to set "allowed rates", which dictates how much they will pay (and how much in-network patients will be responsible for). Unfortunately, thanks to lobbying and corruption, some Medicare rates are artificially inflated, and that drives the health care industry to push for those test/procedures to be done. A good example is the Nuclear Stress Test in cardiology, which is usually unnecessary (and not good for the patient), but usually prescribed instead of the regular Echo Stress Test, because the Nuclear one costs so much more.

    What will socialized medicine do?

    It will simply shift the bill to the government, with all the same existing problems. But even worse, with all tests/procedures being "free", utilization will go way up, and the net cost will be more.

    Neither party has approached this healthcare fiasco properly. If something reasonable is not put in place soon, then yes, socialized medicine will be in our future -- at least until that is a spectacular failure and it's rolled back.

    How come socialized medicine works in other countries? First off, there's lots of debate as to how well it actually works, but I will concede that cost-wise, other first world countries spend far less per capita on their socialized healthcare systems.

    But that's simply because they don't have all of these horrible price structures in place like the US does, and these wouldn't be dismantled if and when socialized medicine comes to the US. Comparing the US cost to, say, England or Australia, is a apples-to-oranges comparison.

    Right now, what we need is a complete restructuring of the way medical services are sold.

    The following would roughly accomplish this (and I've said it before, btw):

    1) Completely reform the billing system, removing a lot of the hidden charges which turn into "gotchas" for patients. For example, if you go to the doctor for a checkup or examination due to a health concern, the doctor can only bill for the examination, and not for equipment he uses to examine you, or because you mentioned other problems while at the office. Most importantly, a written estimate must be provided to the patient prior to treatment/examination, which will indicate his out-of-pocket cost, and the patient must sign it. This, of course, would be waived in the case of extreme emergency.

    2) Do away with the "preferred provider" model with health insurance. Instead, make health insurance pay for any doctor and any facility, but with a (relatively low) cap on the amount paid for each billable item. Doctors can charge what they want (but must disclose it to the patient before treatment), and the free market will take care of the rest. For example, let's say you want a checkup. Your insurance will pay $60 for it. You can go to a top doctor who might charge $200 for it (meaning you'll pay $140 out of pocket), or you can go to a lower-tier doctor who just charges the $60, thus making the visit "free".

    3) Based upon income, the government can provide relief for health insurance premiums or certain out-of-pocket expenses. So the guy making $14,000 per year will still be able to get treated even if he is living from hand to mouth.

    4) Sicker people will pay higher premiums than healthy people, with a subsidy from the government at a certain point if those premiums cannot be afforded. Nobody will be denied insurance based upon health condition.

    5) End group insurance. The entire group insurance model is antiquated, and hails from a time when people tended to work for one company for most of their life, and the company would almost act as a parental figure. That's how company-provided healthcare was born. However, today's economy is far different, and now the burden of providing healthcare has fallen into the laps of today's corporations. It is highly inefficient, unfairly favors the older people, and is a huge profit center for insurance companies. (For example, if you're a healthy 35-year-old, you'd be SHOCKED what your company is paying for your healthcare coverage -- money which could otherwise be used for your salary!) Replace the group insurance with the company simply paying the employees' individual insurance premiums.

    Implement the above, and we will save a ton of money, while not denying anyone care. You'll be shocked how quickly the costs come down once the free market takes hold.

  16. #76
    Company provided health care was a way to attract employees during an era of wage controls in the US.

    In high tech it is still used as a powerful benefit. It’s free

    From what I can tell even little startups and VC ops are offering free health care.

    The trend is free and astounds me but there you have it.

    Haves and have nots.

  17. #77
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    7269
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    44,980
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanlmar View Post
    Company provided health care was a way to attract employees during an era of wage controls in the US.

    In high tech it is still used as a powerful benefit. Itís free

    From what I can tell even little startups and VC ops are offering free health care.

    The trend is free and astounds me but there you have it.

    Haves and have nots.
    If you don't provide healthcare nowadays (at least at skilled jobs), employees look down on your company as shit, and don't want to work there.

    What really needs to happen is an outlawing of group plans (as I mentioned), and then these companies can still provide healthcare by simply reimbursing the employee (and their family) for the premiums they'll pay.

    Tons of bloat in those premiums currently paid for group plans, but companies feel trapped and are forced to pay it.

    I worked for a small company from 1998-2003. Just like what I suggested above, they were simply reimbursing employees for their individual plans. This worked fine until they hired some salesmen with preexisting health conditions, and suddenly the only way to insure these guys was to buy a small group plan. The owner of the company used to come into my office in the evening and complain how the insurance companies were robbing him blind with the premiums.

  18. #78
    Someone above posted that private healthcare is 100-200 a month (i think they were living in a different country so probably not up on how it works in the USA). Not unless you are at an extremely low income level.

    I pay $486 a month/$5,000 deductible and am completely healthy. Haven't been to the doctor in over 5 years.

  19. #79
    Thread lightly when posting TYT content. This was one of their finest moments...


  20. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    LOL at Universal Health Care cutting down US healthcare costs.

    No.

    The main cost of US healthcare comes from tests and procedures. The left likes to push the myth that cutting out the insurance middleman will produce huge savings, but that's a drop in the bucket compared to what is actually paid to medical providers, hospitals, and test facilities.

    What aboug Big Pharma? That's some of the problem, but not the main part of it. The pharmaceutical cost can be brought under control far more easily than the cost of the rest of US healthcare. Simply introduce the ability to order pharmaceuticals from other first world countries, and the prices in the US will plummet.

    Healthcare in the US is so expensive for various reasons:

    1) The pricing model is opaque. The patient has no idea what services he's buying (or what they cost) until after he has them, and receives a bill. Furthermore, in the cases where insurance pays all or most of the bill, the patient doesn't care about the cost anyway.

    2) There are no free market forces at work. Doctors and facilities are for what they do, not how well they do it. There is little financial incentive for a doctor to do a good job, but big financial incentives to see large numbers of patients and creatively bill for as many expensive things as possible.

    3) The pricing model is driven by Medicare. That's the benchmark insurance companies use to set "allowed rates", which dictates how much they will pay (and how much in-network patients will be responsible for). Unfortunately, thanks to lobbying and corruption, some Medicare rates are artificially inflated, and that drives the health care industry to push for those test/procedures to be done. A good example is the Nuclear Stress Test in cardiology, which is usually unnecessary (and not good for the patient), but usually prescribed instead of the regular Echo Stress Test, because the Nuclear one costs so much more.

    What will socialized medicine do?

    It will simply shift the bill to the government, with all the same existing problems. But even worse, with all tests/procedures being "free", utilization will go way up, and the net cost will be more.

    Neither party has approached this healthcare fiasco properly. If something reasonable is not put in place soon, then yes, socialized medicine will be in our future -- at least until that is a spectacular failure and it's rolled back.

    How come socialized medicine works in other countries? First off, there's lots of debate as to how well it actually works, but I will concede that cost-wise, other first world countries spend far less per capita on their socialized healthcare systems.

    But that's simply because they don't have all of these horrible price structures in place like the US does, and these wouldn't be dismantled if and when socialized medicine comes to the US. Comparing the US cost to, say, England or Australia, is a apples-to-oranges comparison.

    Right now, what we need is a complete restructuring of the way medical services are sold.

    The following would roughly accomplish this (and I've said it before, btw):

    1) Completely reform the billing system, removing a lot of the hidden charges which turn into "gotchas" for patients. For example, if you go to the doctor for a checkup or examination due to a health concern, the doctor can only bill for the examination, and not for equipment he uses to examine you, or because you mentioned other problems while at the office. Most importantly, a written estimate must be provided to the patient prior to treatment/examination, which will indicate his out-of-pocket cost, and the patient must sign it. This, of course, would be waived in the case of extreme emergency.

    2) Do away with the "preferred provider" model with health insurance. Instead, make health insurance pay for any doctor and any facility, but with a (relatively low) cap on the amount paid for each billable item. Doctors can charge what they want (but must disclose it to the patient before treatment), and the free market will take care of the rest. For example, let's say you want a checkup. Your insurance will pay $60 for it. You can go to a top doctor who might charge $200 for it (meaning you'll pay $140 out of pocket), or you can go to a lower-tier doctor who just charges the $60, thus making the visit "free".

    3) Based upon income, the government can provide relief for health insurance premiums or certain out-of-pocket expenses. So the guy making $14,000 per year will still be able to get treated even if he is living from hand to mouth.

    4) Sicker people will pay higher premiums than healthy people, with a subsidy from the government at a certain point if those premiums cannot be afforded. Nobody will be denied insurance based upon health condition.

    5) End group insurance. The entire group insurance model is antiquated, and hails from a time when people tended to work for one company for most of their life, and the company would almost act as a parental figure. That's how company-provided healthcare was born. However, today's economy is far different, and now the burden of providing healthcare has fallen into the laps of today's corporations. It is highly inefficient, unfairly favors the older people, and is a huge profit center for insurance companies. (For example, if you're a healthy 35-year-old, you'd be SHOCKED what your company is paying for your healthcare coverage -- money which could otherwise be used for your salary!) Replace the group insurance with the company simply paying the employees' individual insurance premiums.

    Implement the above, and we will save a ton of money, while not denying anyone care. You'll be shocked how quickly the costs come down once the free market takes hold.
    So now that we decided how we are going to pay way less for healthcare, how is the industry going to rebalance itself for the billions (trillions?) of $$ that just disappeared? I don't know how many people are employed either directly or indirectly in healthcare (10 million? 20 million? 50 million?). Are we just supposed to cut those jobs in half? Instead should we tell everyone working in the industry they are going to make 40% less? Should executives volunteer to take massive voluntary paycuts? I really don't know.

    I will take you at your word that healthcare is a lot less expensive in Europe. In light of this, do you know how the system is able to work? Do people make a lot less $$? Are there a lot less employees (direct and indirect)? Do executives make a lot less? I think this is something that needs to be understood and taken into account if we are really trying to improve our system.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Cortez, the socialist bitch
    By thesparten in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 01-12-2019, 05:58 PM

Tags for this Thread