Election 16: Donald Trumps wins Presidency. God Help us all!

[TheGoodBits]

I've decided to vote for Trump in the VA primary on Tuesday. After a lot of thought, I suspect that having him as the GOP nominee could be so devastating to the Republican Party, we might actually be able to get something positive done in this country for a change.

Go Trump. Burn it down.

[chipwhich]

I've decided to vote for Trump in the VA primary on Tuesday. After a lot of thought, I suspect that having him as the GOP nominee could be so devastating to the Republican Party, we might actually be able to get something positive done in this country for a change.

Go Trump. Burn it down.

 

Good move, cuz he is gonna beat Hillary.

 

My current lineup is Trump Pres, Kasich VP, Christie Attorney General.

 

Do your part in upsetting the apple cart.  Vote Trump and watch history made.

You'll probably get a kick out of the other #WhichHillary stuff too (big trend on Twitter yesterday):

https://mobile.twitter.com/hashtag/WhichHillary

 

I saw that, it's Hillarious  pun intended.  She is such a phony.  I can't believe everyone just accepts her as a viable candidate.  Especially black folk. 

[PeterMP]

So just to be clear, he calls it Medicare for all.  That's what he calls it.  If you read his plan it's not putting everyone on Medicare.  You can't make up what his plan is when it's not what he is claiming.

 

Okay, but can't you see where that generates confusion.

 

He calls it Medicare for all, but it isn't putting everybody on Medicare.

 

If I paint a car black and call it orange, is it the fault of the people if they are confused or is it mine for calling it something that it isn't?

 

If you were proposing something that wasn't Medicare for everybody, why would you call it Medicare for all?

 

And the details matter.

 

I'm not arguing that it is Medicare.  I get that.

 

I'm arguing there are going to be practical consequences to it being Medicare for all vs. no copays, no deductibiles and no private insurance companies.

[chipwhich]

Okay, but can't you see where that generates confusion.

 

He calls it Medicare for all, but it isn't putting everybody on Medicare.

 

If I paint a car black and call it orange, is it the fault of the people if they are confused or is it mine for calling it something that it isn't?

 

If you were proposing something that wasn't Medicare for everybody, why would you call it Medicare for all?

 

And the details matter.

 

As I have posted in this thread, I think he calls it Medicare for all because calling it a single payer system or any other name has a stigma attached.

 

So he calls it Medicare for all because people think he is just extending Medicare, but truth is it's a whole new plan.

[RedskinsFan44]

Good move, cuz he is gonna beat Hillary.

 

My current lineup is Trump Pres, Kasich VP, Christie Attorney

Lepage is a much better fit for VP.

[PeterMP]

What's the point of repeating this question in this context?Don't private insurers ask the exact same question? Do you think this is only a problem for public healthcare?

Anyway I generally find it silly when people tell me public healthcare is unworkable when the fact is that there are lots of working public health care systems all over the world.

I understand that private insurance companies currently make those decisions. That wasn't the point. The point was that declaring health care a right is meaningless.

I'm not really against going to a single payer system (though I do question if it would save us as much as somebody think).

The point is that you want to talk about having a discussion, but all you want to do is post vague generalities.

And no we don't want need to settle those issues in this thread, but posting vague generalities without admitting or recognizing the complexities doesn't do any good.

To declare that health care is right is meaningless if you can't deal with the details.

We have the highest prescription drug use in the world, and we are using more drugs per a person every year.

And that's despite the highest list prices at least (now, there is an issue that most people don't pay list prices), which based on the research should actually reduce consumption.

What is going to happen to consumption if you remove any associated costs to the individual and how is that going to affect real costs?

I'd rather talk about reality and details than what are essentially meaningless slogans.

Yay, health care is a right!

Now what?

Oh, and that's exactly what is going to happen to Sanders in a general election.

 

Good point. You're right, we do have a choice. We could stay out of it.

I don't think that's Bernie's view though, nor is it the view of any other candidate that I'm aware of, but I'd actually be open to considering a non-interventionist or pacifist approach, if that's what you're suggesting.

Is there some pacifist candidate I don't know about? Are you endorsing him?

I think we should largely disengage from the Middle East.

I actually think it would help the Middle East countries deal with the mess (though I'll admit that things might get worse before the get better).

 

Now here you're just being obtuse. Please look at what I said again.

Is what I said wrong?

As I have posted in this thread, I think he calls it Medicare for all because calling it a single payer system or any other name has a stigma attached.

 

So he calls it Medicare for all because people think he is just extending Medicare, but truth is it's a whole new plan.

And I agree.

Sanders is essentially lying about what he is proposing because he thinks it will help people to accept it.

He knows it isn't medicare for all, and he understand the differences, but he's still labeling it something it isn't.

And the differences matter!

[s0crates]

As I have posted in this thread, I think he calls it Medicare for all because calling it a single payer system or any other name has a stigma attached.

So he calls it Medicare for all because people think he is just extending Medicare, but truth is it's a whole new plan.

Yup.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/02/25/medicare-for-all-vs-single-payer-the-impact-of-labels/

Sen. Bernie Sanders describes his health-care proposal as a Medicare-for-all, single-payer plan. The plan, however, would not expand the current Medicare program but replace it, along with Medicaid, private insurance, and other programs with what might be described as a Medicare-like, government-run single-payer plan. New polling shows why Mr. Sanders’s label works well politically in the primary campaign: Among Democrats, the term “Medicare-for-all” generates a much more enthusiastic reaction than does “single-payer.” With this discussion still mostly at the stage of broad concepts and messaging, language matters.

[RedskinsFan44]

Yay, health care is a right!Now what?Oh, and that's exactly what is going to happen to Sanders

We're going to erase the lines around the states.

[chipwhich]

Lepage is a much better fit for VP.

 

LOL you can joke all ya want.  Enjoy your new President.

[PeterMP]

We're going to erase the lines around the states.

I recognize that this might be meant as a joke, but just to be clear, if you think I am a fan of Trump (or Republicans in general) on health care, you got the wrong person.

http://es.redskins.com/topic/371493-campaign-2016-can-anyone-prevent-trump-from-becoming-potus-45/?p=10527422

[chipwhich]

And the differences matter!

 

We have a health crisis in America.  We have a prescription drug crisis in America (in my opinion) as all Primary Care Physicians do is prescribe drugs for diabetes, high blood pressure, ADD.  Heck our children are part of overprescribed America.

 

It's a huge problem.

 

It also wont be fixed by high deductibles, and high copays and the affordable care act.  As I have routinely posted the ACA is going to be nothing but catastrophic care because the high deductibles and copays will preclude folks from going to the doctor unless it's catastrophic.  It won't fix our health crisis.

[s0crates]

I understand that private insurance companies currently make those decisions. That wasn't the point.

Honestly it's been hard to figure what your point has been in most of your posts today.

The point was that declaring health care a right is meaningless.

I don't think it's meaningless. Countries that have made it a right have provided it. We aren't one of those countries. I think we should be.

I'm not really against going to a single payer system (though I do question if it would save us as much as somebody think).

Then we don't disagree. So why are we bothering with this tediousness?

The point is that you want to talk about having a discussion, but all you want to do is post vague generalities.

What you call vague generalities I call principles, and I'm looking for a candidate with principles I accept.

As in science, logic, and mathematics, so too in law: You begin with first principles, then you work from there.

And no we don't want need to settle those issues in this thread, but posting vague generalities without admitting or recognizing the complexities doesn't do any good.

I recognize and admit there are complexities. I've told you that. It's like you only read every other sentence I write in my replies to you.

To declare that health care is right is meaningless if you can't deal with the details.

Of course you have to deal with details, but probably not now, and definitely not here.

What is going to happen to consumption if you remove any associated costs to the individual and how is that going to affect real costs?

I'm trying to think how this works in your mind.

Say a little kid has asthma, he needs an inhaler his parents cannot afford, what would you say?

"Tough **** kid, real sorry you can't breath, but we cannot give you the care you need because of the almighty free market. It's supply and demand. If we start giving people the medicine they need, then it's a slippery slope to inhaler shortages and bread lines."

I think we should largely disengage from the Middle East.

I actually think it would help the Middle East countries deal with the mess (though I'll admit that things might get worse before the get better).

I'm all for it. What presidential candidate supports that policy?

The closest I've seen is Bernie's plan to get Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia to help deal with ISIS.

Is what I said wrong?

It's misleading because it omits important details.

You act like Bernie thinks not having an achievable goal and exit strategy is good, like he hasn't repeatedly called for a plan to end perpetual warfare.

Sanders is essentially lying about what he is proposing because he thinks it will help people to accept it.

He knows it isn't medicare for all, and he understand the differences, but he's still labeling it something it isn't.

That's not a lie. It's calling a program something that voters will understand.

For example, Medicare is socialized medicine, but most people think Medicare is good and socialized medicine is evil. So we don't call Medicare "socialized medicine." That doesn't make us liars.

And Bernie usually refers to his healthcare plan with the descriptor "Medicare-for-all, single payer." I think you're being pretty unfair if you call that a lie. What do you want him to call it "evil pinko commie medicine"?

[visionary]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/establishment-gop-shifting-to-trump-219893

Wall of GOP resistance to Trump begins to crack

 

When Chris Christie threw his support behind Donald Trump, Washington gasped. But the wall of establishment opposition to Trump’s candidacy had begun cracking days before New Jersey’s governor barreled right through it.

 

From Rep. Duncan Hunter and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who have signaled an openness to working with Trump, to Mike Huckabee’s daughter and adviser Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who officially joined Trump's campaign this week, Republican officials and operatives are coming to grips with the reality that this anti-establishment hero is now the presumptive GOP nominee.

 

“Folks are now going through the stages of grief,” said one high-ranking Republican operative. “Some are already at acceptance.”

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/26/christie-hated-trump-19-days-ago.html

Christie Hated Trump 19 Days Ago

 

Not even three weeks ago on February 7, Chris Christie, then a candidate for the Republican nomination, stood in the center of a middle school cafeteria in Hampton, New Hampshire and told a few hundred people that Donald Trump is a joke.

 

He said his campaign was nothing but “make believe,” just like The Apprentice, and that his policy proposals, to the extent that he has any, are stupid.

 

“Bravado, by itself, is not a plan,” he said, “I like him, he’s a good person, he’s just not the right person to be President of the United States and not the person that we’d want representing our country.”

 

And then he mocked that bravado in a long, involved monologue in which he impersonated Trump’s voice.
But on Friday afternoon, Christie—standing at Trump’s side onstage in Fort Worth, Texas—had a change of heart. And a change of brain.  And a change of soul.

 

“There is no one who is better prepared to provide America with the strong leadership that it needs both at home and around the world than Donald Trump,” Christie said, “he is—looking at the five people on that stage last night—the clear standout and the person who will do exactly what needs to be done to make America a leader around the world again.”

 

Christie didn’t provide an explanation for his decision in his remarks, other than to say Trump is a “loyal” friend. The rationale is that this is an attempt to mitigate the damage of a Trump candidacy or, not altogether unrealistically, a Trump presidency. If Trump is going to be the de facto leader of the Republican party, the thinking goes, it’s best to get on his good side and attempt to influence his policies as much as possible.

 

New Jersey Republicans floated other theories, on Facebook—namely that Christie, the former United States Attorney from New Jersey, might be positioning himself to be President Trump’s Attorney General. Presumably in a Trump administration, the federal investigations into his office wouldn’t be disqualifying.

[PeterMP]

We have a health crisis in America.  We have a prescription drug crisis in America (in my opinion) as all Primary Care Physicians do is prescribe drugs for diabetes, high blood pressure, ADD.  Heck our children are part of overprescribed America.

 

It's a huge problem.

 

It also wont be fixed by high deductibles, and high copays and the affordable care act.  As I have routinely posted the ACA is going to be nothing but catastrophic care because the high deductibles and copays will preclude folks from going to the doctor unless it's catastrophic.  It won't fix our health crisis.

chipwhich, I agree with a lot of what you say here.

High deductible plans have lots of issues (studies show that people on high deductible plans make really bad decisions with their money). I've written here many times the ACA doesn't do much and almost certainly not enough to control costs.

The best solution isn't clear to me, but one thing I'm pretty sure of is that meaningless declarations, empty slogans, and mislabeling proposals ain't going to help the situation.

[PeterMP]

I'm trying to think how this works in your mind.

Say a little kid has asthma, he needs an inhaler his parents cannot afford, what would you say? "Tough **** kid, hope you don't die, but we cannot give you the care you need because of the almighty free market. It's supply and demand. If we start giving people the medicine they need, then it's a slippery slope to inhaler shortages and bread lines."

Nobody I know is talking about getting rid Medicaid or Chip programs, and I'm certainly not.

http://rwjf-eriu.org/pdf/WP57_Frick_Chernew.pdf

"Economic analysis of health insurance markets has long noted that insurance increases

consumption of heath care services because it shields individuals from the true price of care.

The additional consumption attributed to insurance is often labeled as “moral hazard” and, in

standard economic models, is considered to result in welfare loss. The cost associated with

additional consumption provides one argument against expanding coverage. "

Out of pocket costs also have an important effect on people using generics vs. name brands. For many drugs, we use a much higher rate of generics than many other countries because most people have to pay much more for the name brand.

 

Do you deny that people paying out of pocket costs for IVF vs. it being free is going to affect the amount of people that have IVF done?

Or even general fertility treatments?

 

I'm all for it. What presidential candidate supports that policy?

None that I know of, but that doesn't change the fact that to say it isn't an option is flawed.

 

It's misleading because it omits important details.

What detail did I omit?

 

It's not a lie, it's a choice of words.

""It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement"

[s0crates]

PeterMP,

I've addressed some of that in an edit. Other than that I'll let you have the last word.

I just feel like I'm spinning my wheels, not getting anywhere.

[PeterMP]

PeterMP,

I've addressed some of that in an edit. Other than that I'll let you have the last word.

I just feel like I'm spinning my wheels, not getting anywhere.

Seriously though, how do you think that's going to play if somebody wants to attack Sanders.

You don't think Trump would have a field day with the idea "it's a choice of words".

It is Medicare for all, but it isn't Medicare at all.

Hillary is taking an easy on Sanders because she's trying to not alienate his voters.

[twa]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

 

POLITICO ‏@politico  44m44 minutes ago

.@MarcoRubio suggests @realDonaldTrump wet his pants on debate stage http://politi.co/1KRuCi4  | AP Photo

 

 

pretty sure we are devolving

[s0crates]

Here are a couple of Bernie's ads:

[chipwhich]

 

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

 

POLITICO ‏@politico  44m44 minutes ago

.@MarcoRubio suggests @realDonaldTrump wet his pants on debate stage http://politi.co/1KRuCi4  | AP Photo

 

 

pretty sure we are devolving

 

 

LOL, this election is so sad.  Rubio has now stooped to stupidity.  How embarrassing.  His chance of ever being President is over.

[TheGoodBits]

Good move, cuz he is gonna beat Hillary.

My current lineup is Trump Pres, Kasich VP, Christie Attorney General.

Do your part in upsetting the apple cart. Vote Trump and watch history made.

No, he won't, and the general election will be a bloodbath if Trump is nominated.

[RedskinsFan44]

I recognize that this might be meant as a joke, but just to be clear, if you think I am a fan of Trump (or Republicans in general) on health care, you got the wrong person.http://es.redskins.com/topic/371493-campaign-2016-can-anyone-prevent-trump-from-becoming-potus-45/?p=10527422

It was a joke.

Interesting move by Christie endorsing, Trump contradicts much of his previous record. Maybe Trump knows about Bridgegate.

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/new-jersey/2016/02/8592107/christie-trump-endorsement-puts-jersey-republicans-bind?cmpid=sf

LOL, this election is so sad.  Rubio has now stooped to stupidity.  How embarrassing.  His chance of ever being President is over.

Something about wrestling pigs.

[skinsmarydu]

Something about wrestling pigs.

LMAO, you get it. Thank you.

One of my regulars is a stage manager/big event union guy. We got in the political weeds for the first time yesterday.

He's voting for Bernie as well, and like me, he's hopeful but knows we may all have to come back to the middle for Hillary.

What I know is that he's NOT voting against his own interests. That's what I call a smart voter.

[Larry]

We're going to erase the lines around the states.

And what do you suppose the result of that will be?

[tshile]

What I know is that he's NOT voting against his own interests. That's what I call a smart voter.

Yup. The idea of voting what's best for the country or the majority is one for a young and naive person. I used to think that way, but not any longer.

Just remember that when you cant figure out why someone won't vote for or support certain things. At the end of the day most people are simply voting for what is best for them at that time.