If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
Trump's appeal is mostly based on (1) a negative reaction to political correctness, (2) unequal trade deals
For whom are they unequal is the question, IMO. This needs further unpacking. Trump taken at face value assumes that as head of ``USA Inc.'' he'll negotiate in ways that help our country at the expense of others. In truth the country has a diverse set of interests, and that's true of other countries. Trade deals have hurt manufacturing and therefore the average American but have helped the US multinationals by making manufacturing abroad possible and preferable. So, IMO, if Trump is gonna view trade pacts through his ``art of the deal'' lens, the question is on whose behalf he will be negotiating. It won't be the whole country because interests aren't uniform.
No freaking kidding! Welcome to the Sanders Side, ent. It's nice here.
there are issues I strongly agree with Sanders need to be fixed... we just don't agree on the solution. That's ok. I at least appreciate the fact he's talking about real problems..
Grammar... The difference between feeling your nuts and feeling you're nuts.
I'm not convinced I agree with his solutions either, but while it isn't perfect it is great news that he's put those issues on the table, and the sooner an imperfect president starts trying the better off we'll all be. Same with Trump. Subtract the awful racism and overall it's a net positive that someone is out there talking frankly about bought politicians.
If a third party was formed.. and it was more of a party for the middle, I could see guys like this joining. I think there are more than a couple who would too
Grammar... The difference between feeling your nuts and feeling you're nuts.
The purpose of the ACA was, in fact, to increase access to health care. To that extent, it has done that; it has been most effective in reaching that goal in states that allowed expansion of Medicaid/Medicare.
Trying to affordably increase access to healthcare is immensely complicated given how health care is paid for and delivered in this country. You should look at the problem of improving access (and by extension the overall health of the nation) through two mechanisms: how it is delivered and how it is paid for.
The current method of delivery is very costly because of the redundancy and the complexity of doing so. There are too many stake holders all of whom have very diverse goals WRT the delivery of quality care. It is an oversimplification, in that context then, to call for outcome based measures of quality of care although this sort of thing is already nascently being applied. Mostly though, no one in the business of delivering care agrees on what those outcomes should be or how to measure them.
There is good evidence that the market place has the potential to streamline healthcare delivery and make it less costly. We should be looking at ways to harness that potential through sensible regulatory approaches at the federal and state level. Just letting the market place do that by itself is folly and the current delivery model and it's associated skyrocketing prices to deliver that care are evidence of that.
How quality health care is paid for is another issue entirely. Given the current model - employer based insurance - we are starting from a disadvantage. Few, however, think this ought to be re-worked. Solutions involve cleaning up the health insurance business. One can argue that providing health insurance at a reasonable cost to employers or individuals cannot be achieved in a free market system. Profit motive and the health of the nation have trouble coexisting. The free market can help hold down costs of health insurance and create efficiencies but the current regulatory model is a huge mess. If you want to understand how much of a mess it is, you've got to spend some time studying this aspect of the healthcare delivery system in the US. It's complicated.
Mission to CFB's National Championship accomplished. JH chased Saban from Alabama and caused Day, at the point of the OSU AD's gun, to make major changes to his staff just to beat Michigan. Love it. It's Moore!!!! time
I still think that instead of Obama's "affordable care" boondoggle, they should have just put everyone on Medicaid/Medicare. Its a system that was already in place, and could have just been expanded to all.
In addition, this crap-ola about politicians opting out of the "affordable care" act and having their own plan absolutely sucks. Politicians should be required to have the same medical plan that they are forcing on the rest of us.
If Barack thinks its such a great plan, then he, Michelle, and his kids should be members #1-4.
"What you're doing, speaks so loudly, that I can't hear what you are saying"
In the current circumstances, single payer systems like Medicare expanded to cover everyone are not financially sustainable. If government were to direct a wholesale change in both the delivery mechanism and the portion of Medicare that is provided by private insurance, maybe but that's not going to happen.
Last edited by Jeff Buchanan; April 2, 2016, 01:05 PM.
Mission to CFB's National Championship accomplished. JH chased Saban from Alabama and caused Day, at the point of the OSU AD's gun, to make major changes to his staff just to beat Michigan. Love it. It's Moore!!!! time
An important point to keep in mind vis-a-vi a national health car plan is that doing so is entirely possible by finding some political middle ground so that a plan can be developed and legislated. What's keeping that from happening are the flamboyantly extreme positions taken on both sides of the debate.
On one side you have conservatives talking about statism and death boards and on the other hand liberals not able to account for the costs of a system that has no criteria for eligibility or way to limit care.
Never mind that every industrialized nation EXCEPT the US has figured out ways to provide health care affordably to all its eligible citizens.
Mission to CFB's National Championship accomplished. JH chased Saban from Alabama and caused Day, at the point of the OSU AD's gun, to make major changes to his staff just to beat Michigan. Love it. It's Moore!!!! time
What Hannibal is stating is a fairly common theme amongst conservatives, someone lost an election because they weren't pure enough of a conservative.
It's not just about ideology. It's also about having instincts for self defense, winning, and not immediately backing down from controversial statements and groveling the first time that you meet resistance. Trump is likely to be the first non punching bag to get the R nomination since Reagan. And even Reagan didn't really play much defense and race/immigration issues weren't paramount in the '80s like they were now.
If you are a Democrat then you cannot relate to this problem, because your political consultants aren't retards and your candidates usually play to win.
Most of the talk about how to fix health care is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. If you declare that health care is a fundamental right and it must be provided to anyone, regardless of cost, then you will end up with a broken and inefficient system. The only choice is "price gouging versus price controls+shortages"
A sensible discussion on immigration should be had. Trump re-calibrated the middle -- thankfully. We ought not pretend that all immigrants are the same. That's irresponsible. Further, we ought to consider if we want open immigration or not -- a fair question. If we decide that we want to limit immigration then we ought to enforce those limits -- if we don't then it's just open immigration. Period. That, too, is entirely sensible.
Not if you want to have a welfare state. Open borders and the welfare state are incompatible. European Socialist Democracies are finding this out the hard way right now,
Tweet
Comment