This is a little funny though.. LOL ..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdY-t4MRqxw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdY-t4MRqxw
Donald Trump
- Thread starter Gameface
- Start date
addictionary
Well-Known Member
That 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of me that was worried about a Santorum presidency can rest easily now.
On another note I'm somewhere between a liberal and a moderate (of course that depends on the crowd...to the average Sean Hannity fan I'm to the left of Che Guevera probably) but would strongly consider voting for a guy like Kasich if Hillary gets the Dem nod. Of course, they'll never elect him so that's not a worry I guess.
Now all I need is for Christie and Trump to be gone and I can rest easier even if the GOP does win in 2016 (I really dislike Cruz, but at least I find him to be a very smart guy).
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
How do you feel about single payer healthcare coverage?
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Rubio lost any chance of my vote with that performance. He proved himself to be the sort of puppet I feared he was. He made Christie look good. I'm pulling for Kasich.
As in, should the government provide healthcare for everyone? I've got mixed feelings...my current thoughts are that perhaps the government should provide a very basic level, which people can then supplement via private insurance.
Red
Well-Known Member
The Donald takes it down a notch, lol.....
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...insult-from-crowd-member-calling-cruz-a-*****
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...insult-from-crowd-member-calling-cruz-a-*****
candrew
Well-Known Member
Unless Trump is the nominee (shudder) I would bet Christie is high on the list for VP for whomever wins the nomination.
If Christie can carry a typically blue state like NJ for a republican candidate, that could be a golden goose in the general election.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
you realize that explains every health care system in the developed world, right? The question becomes what is a basic level?
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Here in the US, people on the right like to portray any notion of state-provided health care as extreme, when in the rest of the developed world, the US is seen as the extreme case for its reliance on privately provided health care. For the large part, people in many of these other countries who received 'socialized' healthcare, are on average more satisfied with the health care they receive than US citizens, plus in many cases, their health care systems produce better, or as good, as health care outcomes as the US and at a lower cost.
But of course, we're the US, so everything we do is better, because . . . US.
It would help the debate if we just acknowledge that our aversion to 'socialized' medicine is a function of the unique culture in the US conditions us to believe this, not because socialized medicine is demonstrably worse than privately provided medicine.
My biggest problem with a lot of these ideas is that while they sound great in theory they come with the price tag of a highly ineffective gov controlling more of our lives. In effective in how they run said programs (Post office, IRS, BLM anyone) and in how the handle the money for said programs. Just look at all the wasted money and debt. I just don't trust them.
This is not a shot at any specific Rs or Ds as they both share enough of the blame for enough years that to me pinpointing for fault is useless at this point. They are all to blame.
This is not a shot at any specific Rs or Ds as they both share enough of the blame for enough years that to me pinpointing for fault is useless at this point. They are all to blame.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
So, assuming that socializing health care results in the government controlling more our lives (something I think is debatable), so do I take it you're OK with corporations controlling more of our lives, including making decisions about who gets insurance and who gets what health procedures and at what cost?
I find it interesting that so many will fight so vigorously to keep the government out of their lives but are absolutely willing to bend over, drop their pants, and take it in the arse from corporations, who control far more of our lives than government does, at least in my opinion. (I'm not saying this is you Stoked.)
Similarly, they will fight Federal Government intrusion on their lives but are perfectly happy with State or local government intrusion on their lives, which in many cases, has more impact on their lives than the Federal Government. (I presume that much of this is motivated by the belief that state and local government better reflect their narrow, factional views, even though they can be mighty oppressive on those who don't share their narrow factional views.)
What's your evidence that the Post Office, IRS and BLM are so highly ineffective?
Note also that in countries where the government does run the health care system, costs are generally lower and efficiencies are generally higher.
You're kidding me right? Please tell me you are joking. Most, if not all, the gov. run agencies are a mess.
As for other govs. being more effective at it. I have no doubt that is true. Unfortunately that does not apply to America. I wish it did but it doesn't.
The leg up that I give corps, not that I am a crop fan boy, over the gov. running said programs is competition. They, to a point, have to offer a better product and service than their competitors. The gov. doesn't. They offer a crap product and you're stuck with it. There are no other options.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Nope dead serious. I realize that its conventional wisdom that government agencies are inherently inefficient and ineffective, but I've not seen specific evidence to demonstrate this, nor to indicate that where such inefficiencies and ineffectivenesses do exist, they are that much worse than what is often found in large private sector firms. (For example, if you want some idea of how large corporations are riddled with inefficiencies and dysfunction, read up on the auto industry, particularly during the 70s and into the 80s.)
Note, I'm not saying the convention wisdom is not accurate, but I presume if it is accurate, there's evidence to demonstrate this.
OK, let's talk about some examples of messes.
How about what is happening in TX with the BLM trying to force ranchers off their farms that they legally bought from the state of TX.
Or how about Social Security. It still uses an MSDOS program. You read that right, MSDOS. How about SSA fraud. Normally when a fraud case happens nothing, nothing will be done. No prosecution, no jail or fines...nothing. Free money! Come one, come all. Or the fact that their computers are replaced about every 2 years despite the current ones being in perfect condition. No program to sell the old equipment exists. Or the fact that it takes 18 months, on average, to get a hearing on a disability case. That is after an average of 10 months of case work. So 2+ years Not very efficient. Or how about all the video conference equipment that sits unused by said judges for their hearings. Hundreds of sites with 10s of thousands of $s in equipment sitting unused collecting dust. Not to mention the thousands spent renovating said rooms so they can also sit unused.
Or how about the huge perks in the capitol building. Life time pensions and healthcare for idiots and fools like Alan Grayson and Alan(?) West. Not to mention 5 star catering and dinning. or that they get to vote their own raises. But no COLA for SSA recipients.
Or what about that VA scandal.
I simply don't trust it.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Why does it not apply to America? Since the US is not providing universal health care, we can't know how it will work here. What we do know is that in many cases where it is done, it is producing better health care outcomes, at a lower cost and with higher public satisfaction rates, than in the US.
As for corporations providing health care in the US, we now have decades of data, which tell us that they do so by (1) producing relatively worse health outcomes, (2) producing low customer satisfaction, (3) rationing health care to those who can afford it, (4) and produce it at a relatively high cost.
Yet, we can't have a rational discussion about this in the US because of the loud voice on the right who shout down any attempt to have an honest discussion about the best way to provide healthcare to ALL US citizens and what legitimate role the government can play in this. Rather we get dog whistles about 'socialized medicine' "rationed health care' 'long wait times" and how the US has 'the best healthcare system in the world (of course it does, we're the US God damn it and everything we do is the best), despite the evidence that our system lags behind the government run universal health care systems in most other developed countries on multiple measures.
The problem is that he's not liked in Jersey anymore. Or at least that's the problem for him. I say good for Jersey for finally realizing what a piece of crap he is.
Last edited: