Official 2016 GOP thread: Is it really going to be Donald Trump?? (1 Viewer)

[culdeus]

I was under impression single payer had nearly no backing on dem side whatsoever.

 

[timschochet]

I was under impression single payer had nearly no backing on dem side whatsoever.

I was speaking of progressives in this forum, most of whom are in favor of it.

 

[culdeus]

I was under impression single payer had nearly no backing on dem side whatsoever.

I was speaking of progressives in this forum, most of whom are in favor of it.

Trump has in the past spoken out for it. Not sure if he's ever been pressed on the matter since.

 

[Dickies]

I was under impression single payer had nearly no backing on dem side whatsoever.

I was speaking of progressives in this forum, most of whom are in favor of it.

I am absolutely 1000% in favor of this. No idea why it is reasonable to expect employers to provide medical care. I feel like people should have access to medical care no matter who they work for or even if they are unemployed. As it stands now if you are unemployed it is crippling to have to pay for health insurance out of pocket.

 

[The Commish]

So everyone posting here seems to agree that Obamacare is causing lots of headaches for small businesses. But conservatives would repeal it and replace it with some sort of market based system closer to what we had before, while progressives would replace it with single payer universal health care. How do we solve this divide?

Not really all that complicated IMO and it's one of the things I think Obama actually had correct. Introduce a government backed health plan available to everyone and allow it to compete in the private market. If it gains traction and becomes the prefered option, so be it

 

[ffldrew]

So everyone posting here seems to agree that Obamacare is causing lots of headaches for small businesses. But conservatives would repeal it and replace it with some sort of market based system closer to what we had before, while progressives would replace it with single payer universal health care. How do we solve this divide?

Not really all that complicated IMO and it's one of the things I think Obama actually had correct. Introduce a government backed health plan available to everyone and allow it to compete in the private market. If it gains traction and becomes the prefered option, so be it

The irony is that Obama's plan WAS the Republican plan

 

[NutterButter]

So everyone posting here seems to agree that Obamacare is causing lots of headaches for small businesses. But conservatives would repeal it and replace it with some sort of market based system closer to what we had before, while progressives would replace it with single payer universal health care. How do we solve this divide?

Not really all that complicated IMO and it's one of the things I think Obama actually had correct. Introduce a government backed health plan available to everyone and allow it to compete in the private market. If it gains traction and becomes the prefered option, so be it

I thought a single payer system in theory is funded with tax dollars. That isn't what you're proposing is it?

 

[culdeus]

So everyone posting here seems to agree that Obamacare is causing lots of headaches for small businesses. But conservatives would repeal it and replace it with some sort of market based system closer to what we had before, while progressives would replace it with single payer universal health care. How do we solve this divide?

Not really all that complicated IMO and it's one of the things I think Obama actually had correct. Introduce a government backed health plan available to everyone and allow it to compete in the private market. If it gains traction and becomes the prefered option, so be it

I thought a single payer system in theory is funded with tax dollars. That isn't what you're proposing is it?

How can you not have a single payer system without tax based funding at least in some part?

 

[NutterButter]

So everyone posting here seems to agree that Obamacare is causing lots of headaches for small businesses. But conservatives would repeal it and replace it with some sort of market based system closer to what we had before, while progressives would replace it with single payer universal health care. How do we solve this divide?

Not really all that complicated IMO and it's one of the things I think Obama actually had correct. Introduce a government backed health plan available to everyone and allow it to compete in the private market. If it gains traction and becomes the prefered option, so be it

I thought a single payer system in theory is funded with tax dollars. That isn't what you're proposing is it?

How can you not have a single payer system without tax based funding at least in some part?

Not sure. I'm not up to speed on all of this. Wanted to make sure we were talking about the same thing. So how do you even compare a plan funded out of pocket with a plan that's tax funded? If you're comparing the quality of the 2, wouldn't the quality of the tax based plan depend on how many tax dollars are being spent on it?

 

[squistion]

CNN Politics@CNNPolitics

Bob Dole endorses @JebBush http://cnn.it/1MAOJPV

 

[culdeus]

So everyone posting here seems to agree that Obamacare is causing lots of headaches for small businesses. But conservatives would repeal it and replace it with some sort of market based system closer to what we had before, while progressives would replace it with single payer universal health care. How do we solve this divide?

Not really all that complicated IMO and it's one of the things I think Obama actually had correct. Introduce a government backed health plan available to everyone and allow it to compete in the private market. If it gains traction and becomes the prefered option, so be it

I thought a single payer system in theory is funded with tax dollars. That isn't what you're proposing is it?

How can you not have a single payer system without tax based funding at least in some part?

Not sure. I'm not up to speed on all of this. Wanted to make sure we were talking about the same thing. So how do you even compare a plan funded out of pocket with a plan that's tax funded? If you're comparing the quality of the 2, wouldn't the quality of the tax based plan depend on how many tax dollars are being spent on it?

Without employer subsidies health insurance wouldn't be affordable. Why employers have to subsidize insurance is based on some legacy system that started I guess in the 50s for no real reason. That subsidy would certainly have to be picked up by either the insured, or else you tax corporations to the extent they used to provide subsidies to make up the gap.

It's a fantasy that there is some free market out there to give office workers insurance at the rates their companies currently provide without support of taxes from somewhere.

Or you just admit the whole thing is ludicrous and move to a national healthcare system. I mean the number you usually hear is employer subsidies amount to up to $12,000 per employee.

 

[Eephus]

CNN Politics@CNNPolitics

Bob Dole endorses @JebBush http://cnn.it/1MAOJPV

CNN Politics@CNNPolitics

Bob Dole is alive #stillbreathing

 

[squistion]

CNN Politics@CNNPolitics

Bob Dole is alive #stillbreathing

Will Bunch ‏@Will_Bunch

Glad to learn that trending Bob Dole didn't die but then he did endorse Jeb Bush which is a form of death

Michael Blackman ‏@ParaComedian09 ·

Experts say if Bob Dole trending lasts longer than 4 hours seek medical attention. @absrdNEWS

 

[Doctor Detroit]

CNN Politics@CNNPolitics

Bob Dole endorses @JebBush http://cnn.it/1MAOJPV

Bob Dole endorses Bob Dole to endorse Jeb Bush

 

[Fennis]

CNN Politics@CNNPolitics

Bob Dole endorses @JebBush http://cnn.it/1MAOJPV

CNN Politics@CNNPolitics

Bob Dole is alive #stillbreathing

my first reaction was "bob dole is alive???"

 

[Joe Summer]

CNN Politics@CNNPolitics

Bob Dole endorses @JebBush http://cnn.it/1MAOJPV

Bob Dole endorses Bob Dole to endorse Jeb Bush

Dammit, you stole my joke.

 

[timschochet]

Well, if anything ought to bring needed energy, excitement and enthusiasm to the Bush campaign, the Dole endorsement should do it!

 

[The Commish]

So everyone posting here seems to agree that Obamacare is causing lots of headaches for small businesses. But conservatives would repeal it and replace it with some sort of market based system closer to what we had before, while progressives would replace it with single payer universal health care. How do we solve this divide?

Not really all that complicated IMO and it's one of the things I think Obama actually had correct. Introduce a government backed health plan available to everyone and allow it to compete in the private market. If it gains traction and becomes the prefered option, so be it

I thought a single payer system in theory is funded with tax dollars. That isn't what you're proposing is it?

"Single payer" is having one source for all healthcare. Having a government plan in the mix with various other plans obviously isn't one source...it's multiple. That's what I'm proposing and what Obama proposed originally. Let the government compete with the other insurance companies for coverage. If they did that, perhaps they'd get around to holding the pharma companies accountable for making the US their prime source for profit.

 

[The Commish]

So everyone posting here seems to agree that Obamacare is causing lots of headaches for small businesses. But conservatives would repeal it and replace it with some sort of market based system closer to what we had before, while progressives would replace it with single payer universal health care. How do we solve this divide?

Not really all that complicated IMO and it's one of the things I think Obama actually had correct. Introduce a government backed health plan available to everyone and allow it to compete in the private market. If it gains traction and becomes the prefered option, so be it

I thought a single payer system in theory is funded with tax dollars. That isn't what you're proposing is it?

How can you not have a single payer system without tax based funding at least in some part?

Not sure. I'm not up to speed on all of this. Wanted to make sure we were talking about the same thing. So how do you even compare a plan funded out of pocket with a plan that's tax funded? If you're comparing the quality of the 2, wouldn't the quality of the tax based plan depend on how many tax dollars are being spent on it?

You'd pay for your insurance plan with the government just like you would the one you have today. The worst that can happen is the government doesn't afford us any substantial benefit and the "private sector can do it better than the gov't" theory would be proven correct. At best, the gov't becomes that shield between us and big pharm (like they should be) and help drive down costs.

 

[NutterButter]

So everyone posting here seems to agree that Obamacare is causing lots of headaches for small businesses. But conservatives would repeal it and replace it with some sort of market based system closer to what we had before, while progressives would replace it with single payer universal health care. How do we solve this divide?

Not really all that complicated IMO and it's one of the things I think Obama actually had correct. Introduce a government backed health plan available to everyone and allow it to compete in the private market. If it gains traction and becomes the prefered option, so be it

I thought a single payer system in theory is funded with tax dollars. That isn't what you're proposing is it?

How can you not have a single payer system without tax based funding at least in some part?

Not sure. I'm not up to speed on all of this. Wanted to make sure we were talking about the same thing. So how do you even compare a plan funded out of pocket with a plan that's tax funded? If you're comparing the quality of the 2, wouldn't the quality of the tax based plan depend on how many tax dollars are being spent on it?

You'd pay for your insurance plan with the government just like you would the one you have today. The worst that can happen is the government doesn't afford us any substantial benefit and the "private sector can do it better than the gov't" theory would be proven correct. At best, the gov't becomes that shield between us and big pharm (like they should be) and help drive down costs.

But the one I have today is largely subsidized by my job. Would the government provide the same subsidy to make it a fair comparison on costs? Without that, my expectations for a government plan would be a lot higher as it will be costing me around 16k more.

 

[Dickies]

So everyone posting here seems to agree that Obamacare is causing lots of headaches for small businesses. But conservatives would repeal it and replace it with some sort of market based system closer to what we had before, while progressives would replace it with single payer universal health care. How do we solve this divide?

Not really all that complicated IMO and it's one of the things I think Obama actually had correct. Introduce a government backed health plan available to everyone and allow it to compete in the private market. If it gains traction and becomes the prefered option, so be it

I thought a single payer system in theory is funded with tax dollars. That isn't what you're proposing is it?

How can you not have a single payer system without tax based funding at least in some part?

Not sure. I'm not up to speed on all of this. Wanted to make sure we were talking about the same thing. So how do you even compare a plan funded out of pocket with a plan that's tax funded? If you're comparing the quality of the 2, wouldn't the quality of the tax based plan depend on how many tax dollars are being spent on it?

You'd pay for your insurance plan with the government just like you would the one you have today. The worst that can happen is the government doesn't afford us any substantial benefit and the "private sector can do it better than the gov't" theory would be proven correct. At best, the gov't becomes that shield between us and big pharm (like they should be) and help drive down costs.

But the one I have today is largely subsidized by my job. Would the government provide the same subsidy to make it a fair comparison on costs? Without that, my expectations for a government plan would be a lot higher as it will be costing me around 16k more.

With trickle down economics your company will be saving $16k and will surely pass on the savings to its employees.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I was under impression single payer had nearly no backing on dem side whatsoever.

I was speaking of progressives in this forum, most of whom are in favor of it.

I am absolutely 1000% in favor of this. No idea why it is reasonable to expect employers to provide medical care. I feel like people should have access to medical care no matter who they work for or even if they are unemployed. As it stands now if you are unemployed it is crippling to have to pay for health insurance out of pocket.

The single biggest problem with the health care system before Obamacare, in my opinion, was the tax incentives that tied health insurance so strongly to employment.

That is also the one thing that Obamacare didn't helpfully address at all -- and actually made it worse (with the employer mandate).

I do think that, on the whole, the effects of Obamacare have probably been more good than bad, or at least it's very close -- the doom-and-gloom predictions have been off so far, though they still have time to come true. (The death spiral could still be coming.)

But whether you love or hate Obamacare or are somewhere in between, you probably agree that its effect hasn't been drastic in either direction. We still have many of the same problems we had before it was enacted -- foremost among them is that health care still costs way too frigging much in general. But all of the things that some people said made the U.S. health care system the best in the world before Obamacare -- we still have all of those things as well. For better or for worse, not all that much has really changed.

The big, necessary, inevitable, sweeping health care reform is still coming. Obamacare wasn't it.

 

[Johnnymac]

^thanks

I sortof see his point but he should have said that because if you didnt know what he was going for he sounded like a moron.

That's because he is a moron

 

[Dickies]

I was under impression single payer had nearly no backing on dem side whatsoever.

I was speaking of progressives in this forum, most of whom are in favor of it.

I am absolutely 1000% in favor of this. No idea why it is reasonable to expect employers to provide medical care. I feel like people should have access to medical care no matter who they work for or even if they are unemployed. As it stands now if you are unemployed it is crippling to have to pay for health insurance out of pocket.

The single biggest problem with the health care system before Obamacare, in my opinion, was the tax incentives that tied health insurance so strongly to employment.

That is also the one thing that Obamacare didn't helpfully address at all -- and actually made it worse (with the employer mandate).

I do think that, on the whole, the effects of Obamacare have probably been more good than bad, or at least it's very close -- the doom-and-gloom predictions have been off so far, though they still have time to come true. (The death spiral could still be coming.)

But whether you love or hate Obamacare or are somewhere in between, you probably agree that its effect hasn't been drastic in either direction. We still have many of the same problems we had before it was enacted -- foremost among them is that health care still costs way too frigging much in general. But all of the things that some people said made the U.S. health care system the best in the world before Obamacare -- we still have all of those things as well. For better or for worse, not all that much has really changed.

The big, necessary, inevitable, sweeping health care reform is still coming. Obamacare wasn't it.

I agree with just about everything you mention here. Health care should not be tied to employment at all. It's not logical or moral.

I certainly do not love or hate Obamacare, but it did allow me to insure myself when I was previously denied due to a pre-existing condition (history of skin cancer). It was never an issue under my group coverage until I got laid off during the financial crisis.

The costs are rising at an astonishingly unsustainable rate. There was a billing error with my kids' coverage and I got sent the bill for their 1-month checkup after they were born. $600 per child for the checkup (had 15 minutes per child allotted, but both were finished in 15 minutes total) and $2000 per child for the first round of vaccines. Total bill was over $5,200 and $4,000+ of that was from a pair of simple vaccines. There is no way those cost that much.

 

[Stinger Ray]

I was under impression single payer had nearly no backing on dem side whatsoever.

I was speaking of progressives in this forum, most of whom are in favor of it.

I am absolutely 1000% in favor of this. No idea why it is reasonable to expect employers to provide medical care. I feel like people should have access to medical care no matter who they work for or even if they are unemployed. As it stands now if you are unemployed it is crippling to have to pay for health insurance out of pocket.

The single biggest problem with the health care system before Obamacare, in my opinion, was the tax incentives that tied health insurance so strongly to employment.

That is also the one thing that Obamacare didn't helpfully address at all -- and actually made it worse (with the employer mandate).

I do think that, on the whole, the effects of Obamacare have probably been more good than bad, or at least it's very close -- the doom-and-gloom predictions have been off so far, though they still have time to come true. (The death spiral could still be coming.)

But whether you love or hate Obamacare or are somewhere in between, you probably agree that its effect hasn't been drastic in either direction. We still have many of the same problems we had before it was enacted -- foremost among them is that health care still costs way too frigging much in general. But all of the things that some people said made the U.S. health care system the best in the world before Obamacare -- we still have all of those things as well. For better or for worse, not all that much has really changed.

The big, necessary, inevitable, sweeping health care reform is still coming. Obamacare wasn't it.

Health care should not be tied to employment at all. It's not logical or moral.

Moral? Companies offering health insurance as a benefit and a way to attract good employees isn't moral?

 

[The Commish]

So everyone posting here seems to agree that Obamacare is causing lots of headaches for small businesses. But conservatives would repeal it and replace it with some sort of market based system closer to what we had before, while progressives would replace it with single payer universal health care. How do we solve this divide?

Not really all that complicated IMO and it's one of the things I think Obama actually had correct. Introduce a government backed health plan available to everyone and allow it to compete in the private market. If it gains traction and becomes the prefered option, so be it

I thought a single payer system in theory is funded with tax dollars. That isn't what you're proposing is it?

How can you not have a single payer system without tax based funding at least in some part?

Not sure. I'm not up to speed on all of this. Wanted to make sure we were talking about the same thing. So how do you even compare a plan funded out of pocket with a plan that's tax funded? If you're comparing the quality of the 2, wouldn't the quality of the tax based plan depend on how many tax dollars are being spent on it?

You'd pay for your insurance plan with the government just like you would the one you have today. The worst that can happen is the government doesn't afford us any substantial benefit and the "private sector can do it better than the gov't" theory would be proven correct. At best, the gov't becomes that shield between us and big pharm (like they should be) and help drive down costs.

But the one I have today is largely subsidized by my job. Would the government provide the same subsidy to make it a fair comparison on costs? Without that, my expectations for a government plan would be a lot higher as it will be costing me around 16k more.

Can't predict the future outcome of a hypothetical so I have to give you the official

Remember, I was answering Tim's question on how to bridge the gap between full on "single payer" and "let private enterprise drive".

 

[roadkill1292]

I was under impression single payer had nearly no backing on dem side whatsoever.

I was speaking of progressives in this forum, most of whom are in favor of it.

I am absolutely 1000% in favor of this. No idea why it is reasonable to expect employers to provide medical care. I feel like people should have access to medical care no matter who they work for or even if they are unemployed. As it stands now if you are unemployed it is crippling to have to pay for health insurance out of pocket.

The single biggest problem with the health care system before Obamacare, in my opinion, was the tax incentives that tied health insurance so strongly to employment.

That is also the one thing that Obamacare didn't helpfully address at all -- and actually made it worse (with the employer mandate).

I do think that, on the whole, the effects of Obamacare have probably been more good than bad, or at least it's very close -- the doom-and-gloom predictions have been off so far, though they still have time to come true. (The death spiral could still be coming.)

But whether you love or hate Obamacare or are somewhere in between, you probably agree that its effect hasn't been drastic in either direction. We still have many of the same problems we had before it was enacted -- foremost among them is that health care still costs way too frigging much in general. But all of the things that some people said made the U.S. health care system the best in the world before Obamacare -- we still have all of those things as well. For better or for worse, not all that much has really changed.

The big, necessary, inevitable, sweeping health care reform is still coming. Obamacare wasn't it.

Health care should not be tied to employment at all. It's not logical or moral.

Moral? Companies offering health insurance as a benefit and a way to attract good employees isn't moral?

Your health insurance coming through your employer is a crappy deal for both parties and really acts as a hindrance to new business creation.

 

[Daywalker]

I was under impression single payer had nearly no backing on dem side whatsoever.

I was speaking of progressives in this forum, most of whom are in favor of it.

I am absolutely 1000% in favor of this. No idea why it is reasonable to expect employers to provide medical care. I feel like people should have access to medical care no matter who they work for or even if they are unemployed. As it stands now if you are unemployed it is crippling to have to pay for health insurance out of pocket.

The single biggest problem with the health care system before Obamacare, in my opinion, was the tax incentives that tied health insurance so strongly to employment.

That is also the one thing that Obamacare didn't helpfully address at all -- and actually made it worse (with the employer mandate).

I do think that, on the whole, the effects of Obamacare have probably been more good than bad, or at least it's very close -- the doom-and-gloom predictions have been off so far, though they still have time to come true. (The death spiral could still be coming.)

But whether you love or hate Obamacare or are somewhere in between, you probably agree that its effect hasn't been drastic in either direction. We still have many of the same problems we had before it was enacted -- foremost among them is that health care still costs way too frigging much in general. But all of the things that some people said made the U.S. health care system the best in the world before Obamacare -- we still have all of those things as well. For better or for worse, not all that much has really changed.

The big, necessary, inevitable, sweeping health care reform is still coming. Obamacare wasn't it.

Health care should not be tied to employment at all. It's not logical or moral.

Moral? Companies offering health insurance as a benefit and a way to attract good employees isn't moral?

Before Obamacare having a pre-existing condition would make it difficult to quit your current job/healthcare.

 

[The Commish]

I was under impression single payer had nearly no backing on dem side whatsoever.

I was speaking of progressives in this forum, most of whom are in favor of it.

I am absolutely 1000% in favor of this. No idea why it is reasonable to expect employers to provide medical care. I feel like people should have access to medical care no matter who they work for or even if they are unemployed. As it stands now if you are unemployed it is crippling to have to pay for health insurance out of pocket.

The single biggest problem with the health care system before Obamacare, in my opinion, was the tax incentives that tied health insurance so strongly to employment.

That is also the one thing that Obamacare didn't helpfully address at all -- and actually made it worse (with the employer mandate).

I do think that, on the whole, the effects of Obamacare have probably been more good than bad, or at least it's very close -- the doom-and-gloom predictions have been off so far, though they still have time to come true. (The death spiral could still be coming.)

But whether you love or hate Obamacare or are somewhere in between, you probably agree that its effect hasn't been drastic in either direction. We still have many of the same problems we had before it was enacted -- foremost among them is that health care still costs way too frigging much in general. But all of the things that some people said made the U.S. health care system the best in the world before Obamacare -- we still have all of those things as well. For better or for worse, not all that much has really changed.

The big, necessary, inevitable, sweeping health care reform is still coming. Obamacare wasn't it.

The biggest problem is IMO the costs. The bold would be 1B though. It's embarrassing how beholden our politicians are to the pharm companies. The rest of the world stands up to the shenanigans, but our politicians can't seem to find the spine to do it on our behalf.

 

[Daywalker]

I was under impression single payer had nearly no backing on dem side whatsoever.

I was speaking of progressives in this forum, most of whom are in favor of it.

I am absolutely 1000% in favor of this. No idea why it is reasonable to expect employers to provide medical care. I feel like people should have access to medical care no matter who they work for or even if they are unemployed. As it stands now if you are unemployed it is crippling to have to pay for health insurance out of pocket.

The single biggest problem with the health care system before Obamacare, in my opinion, was the tax incentives that tied health insurance so strongly to employment.

That is also the one thing that Obamacare didn't helpfully address at all -- and actually made it worse (with the employer mandate).

I do think that, on the whole, the effects of Obamacare have probably been more good than bad, or at least it's very close -- the doom-and-gloom predictions have been off so far, though they still have time to come true. (The death spiral could still be coming.)

But whether you love or hate Obamacare or are somewhere in between, you probably agree that its effect hasn't been drastic in either direction. We still have many of the same problems we had before it was enacted -- foremost among them is that health care still costs way too frigging much in general. But all of the things that some people said made the U.S. health care system the best in the world before Obamacare -- we still have all of those things as well. For better or for worse, not all that much has really changed.

The big, necessary, inevitable, sweeping health care reform is still coming. Obamacare wasn't it.

The biggest problem is IMO the costs. The bold would be 1B though. It's embarrassing how beholden our politicians are to the pharm companies. The rest of the world stands up to the shenanigans, but our politicians can't seem to find the spine to do it on our behalf.

Spine? You don't take the money you don't get elected. The old "Silver or Lead."

That and they get lucrative jobs with these companies when they are out of office.

 

[Stinger Ray]

I was under impression single payer had nearly no backing on dem side whatsoever.

I was speaking of progressives in this forum, most of whom are in favor of it.

I am absolutely 1000% in favor of this. No idea why it is reasonable to expect employers to provide medical care. I feel like people should have access to medical care no matter who they work for or even if they are unemployed. As it stands now if you are unemployed it is crippling to have to pay for health insurance out of pocket.

The single biggest problem with the health care system before Obamacare, in my opinion, was the tax incentives that tied health insurance so strongly to employment.

That is also the one thing that Obamacare didn't helpfully address at all -- and actually made it worse (with the employer mandate).

I do think that, on the whole, the effects of Obamacare have probably been more good than bad, or at least it's very close -- the doom-and-gloom predictions have been off so far, though they still have time to come true. (The death spiral could still be coming.)

But whether you love or hate Obamacare or are somewhere in between, you probably agree that its effect hasn't been drastic in either direction. We still have many of the same problems we had before it was enacted -- foremost among them is that health care still costs way too frigging much in general. But all of the things that some people said made the U.S. health care system the best in the world before Obamacare -- we still have all of those things as well. For better or for worse, not all that much has really changed.

The big, necessary, inevitable, sweeping health care reform is still coming. Obamacare wasn't it.

Health care should not be tied to employment at all. It's not logical or moral.

Moral? Companies offering health insurance as a benefit and a way to attract good employees isn't moral?

Before Obamacare having a pre-existing condition would make it difficult to quit your current job/healthcare.

I'm not sure that is true. There was portability which allowed someone to not have to worry about that. If you quit your job and found another one that offered health insurance pre existing conditions were either covered or would be excluded for just a short period. We need mattyyl to clarify this.

 

[The Commish]

I was under impression single payer had nearly no backing on dem side whatsoever.

I was speaking of progressives in this forum, most of whom are in favor of it.

I am absolutely 1000% in favor of this. No idea why it is reasonable to expect employers to provide medical care. I feel like people should have access to medical care no matter who they work for or even if they are unemployed. As it stands now if you are unemployed it is crippling to have to pay for health insurance out of pocket.

The single biggest problem with the health care system before Obamacare, in my opinion, was the tax incentives that tied health insurance so strongly to employment.

That is also the one thing that Obamacare didn't helpfully address at all -- and actually made it worse (with the employer mandate).

I do think that, on the whole, the effects of Obamacare have probably been more good than bad, or at least it's very close -- the doom-and-gloom predictions have been off so far, though they still have time to come true. (The death spiral could still be coming.)

But whether you love or hate Obamacare or are somewhere in between, you probably agree that its effect hasn't been drastic in either direction. We still have many of the same problems we had before it was enacted -- foremost among them is that health care still costs way too frigging much in general. But all of the things that some people said made the U.S. health care system the best in the world before Obamacare -- we still have all of those things as well. For better or for worse, not all that much has really changed.

The big, necessary, inevitable, sweeping health care reform is still coming. Obamacare wasn't it.

The biggest problem is IMO the costs. The bold would be 1B though. It's embarrassing how beholden our politicians are to the pharm companies. The rest of the world stands up to the shenanigans, but our politicians can't seem to find the spine to do it on our behalf.

Spine? You don't take the money you don't get elected. The old "Silver or Lead."

That and they get lucrative jobs with these companies when they are out of office.

making my point. thanks?

 

[NutterButter]

I was under impression single payer had nearly no backing on dem side whatsoever.

I was speaking of progressives in this forum, most of whom are in favor of it.

I am absolutely 1000% in favor of this. No idea why it is reasonable to expect employers to provide medical care. I feel like people should have access to medical care no matter who they work for or even if they are unemployed. As it stands now if you are unemployed it is crippling to have to pay for health insurance out of pocket.

The single biggest problem with the health care system before Obamacare, in my opinion, was the tax incentives that tied health insurance so strongly to employment.

That is also the one thing that Obamacare didn't helpfully address at all -- and actually made it worse (with the employer mandate).

I do think that, on the whole, the effects of Obamacare have probably been more good than bad, or at least it's very close -- the doom-and-gloom predictions have been off so far, though they still have time to come true. (The death spiral could still be coming.)

But whether you love or hate Obamacare or are somewhere in between, you probably agree that its effect hasn't been drastic in either direction. We still have many of the same problems we had before it was enacted -- foremost among them is that health care still costs way too frigging much in general. But all of the things that some people said made the U.S. health care system the best in the world before Obamacare -- we still have all of those things as well. For better or for worse, not all that much has really changed.

The big, necessary, inevitable, sweeping health care reform is still coming. Obamacare wasn't it.

The biggest problem is IMO the costs. The bold would be 1B though. It's embarrassing how beholden our politicians are to the pharm companies. The rest of the world stands up to the shenanigans, but our politicians can't seem to find the spine to do it on our behalf.

Out of curiosity, which countries do you consider to have good healthcare systems?

 

[Righetti]

Last night marked the fourth republican debate and the first since Christie and Huckabee were shunned to the kids table which must have made the remaining candidates pretty happy because those two seem like they love a good family style meal.

Our first issue with this last debate that we had no clue where the hell the Fox Business News was on the Optimum box, it was so hidden that we missed the opening remarks by the three moderator stooges.

What we came out with is the following...

Carson. This guy is in that position amongst GOP front runners where it doesn't matter what he says, nobody cares. Carson has no substance, no specifics and is now making his entire campaign about how the vast left wing conspiracy is out to get him..and he leads in the polls

Trump. The Republican Unravelling of the Most Pompous ahole has begun. Trump is lost and without his "build a tremendous wall" and "I've built a great company" lines to get him applause he is nothing more than an empty suit...one with a tie which hangs about three inches too low

Rubio. Everything the republicans said about Obama in 2008 will apply to Rubio in 2016. He is too young, too inexperienced, misses too many senate votes and has ears that are too big but still it won't matter. Rubio falls into his talking points more confortably than any politician I have ever seen, his ability to deflect any questions and go into his "my father was a bartender and my mother is a maid" thing is amazing to watch.

Q. Senator what do you feel about social security reform

A. Neil, my mother was a maid and my father was a bartender so I know about needing security, it is our greatest threat. We didn't have much but we had each other and that's alright for love, you just have to hold on to what you got. Sometimes it just doesn't make a difference whether you make it or not

Q Senator, What is your position on immigration?

A- listen Maria, I know about immigration as my father was a bartender and my mother was a maid so we had to deal with a lot of immigration from the holiday inn to the days inn. Sometimes my mom would work at one place and other times as the other and that was an important part

Q- senator, what do you think about a no-fly zone over Syria

A- thank you bald guy, when I was a child my father was a bartender and my mother a maid and we knew how important it was to keep the flies away from the food in the bar's kitchen, so we worked hard to form that trust that will continue to strengthen our resolve and arm our friends against Putin and Assad.

Kasich

Our boy has less than 0% chance, he is practical, moderate and smart which means the crazies hate him. He literally got booed a number of times last night. Rooting for him is like rooting for the Browns

Carly

The greatest celebrities are known by only their first name. Madonna, Britney, Justin, Tom and Carly could be right up there. She should just change it to Karly and she might have a chance at making that work. I have nothing to say about her, she is crazy, ran HP into the ground and wore the absolute worst color sweater at the debate. Who chooses puke green for a rendezvous with Rand Paul and Jeb Bush??

Cruz

I have this vision in my head of Cruz knocking on doors trying to drum up support and people just slamming them in his face as they assume he is is just fulfilling his Megan's Law punishment

Jeb

It Is Over. Pack up the tent, send home the guy selling hot-dogs and apologize to the guys who got (free) tickets to see you..nobody thinks you have a shot in hell at this thing. You are an insecure twerp with a crappy haircut and a family name like a noose. Just leave, please

Rand

I am shocked to write this but the most sensible guy on stage was the one whose head looks like it is covered in pubic hair. He is the only one (other than Kasich) with some conviction in his beliefs, the only one who I would genuinely believe would transform Washington and yet he scares the hell out of me like an image of Neil Cavuto on a naked people beach. But he did great last night

 

[Daywalker]

I was under impression single payer had nearly no backing on dem side whatsoever.

I was speaking of progressives in this forum, most of whom are in favor of it.

I am absolutely 1000% in favor of this. No idea why it is reasonable to expect employers to provide medical care. I feel like people should have access to medical care no matter who they work for or even if they are unemployed. As it stands now if you are unemployed it is crippling to have to pay for health insurance out of pocket.

The single biggest problem with the health care system before Obamacare, in my opinion, was the tax incentives that tied health insurance so strongly to employment.

That is also the one thing that Obamacare didn't helpfully address at all -- and actually made it worse (with the employer mandate).

I do think that, on the whole, the effects of Obamacare have probably been more good than bad, or at least it's very close -- the doom-and-gloom predictions have been off so far, though they still have time to come true. (The death spiral could still be coming.)

But whether you love or hate Obamacare or are somewhere in between, you probably agree that its effect hasn't been drastic in either direction. We still have many of the same problems we had before it was enacted -- foremost among them is that health care still costs way too frigging much in general. But all of the things that some people said made the U.S. health care system the best in the world before Obamacare -- we still have all of those things as well. For better or for worse, not all that much has really changed.

The big, necessary, inevitable, sweeping health care reform is still coming. Obamacare wasn't it.

The biggest problem is IMO the costs. The bold would be 1B though. It's embarrassing how beholden our politicians are to the pharm companies. The rest of the world stands up to the shenanigans, but our politicians can't seem to find the spine to do it on our behalf.

Spine? You don't take the money you don't get elected. The old "Silver or Lead."

That and they get lucrative jobs with these companies when they are out of office.

making my point. thanks?

My point is that it is the system moreso then the politicians.

 

[bigbottom]

Last night marked the fourth republican debate and the first since Christie and Huckabee were shunned to the kids table which must have made the remaining candidates pretty happy because those two seem like they love a good family style meal.

Our first issue with this last debate that we had no clue where the hell the Fox Business News was on the Optimum box, it was so hidden that we missed the opening remarks by the three moderator stooges.

What we came out with is the following...

Carson. This guy is in that position amongst GOP front runners where it doesn't matter what he says, nobody cares. Carson has no substance, no specifics and is now making his entire campaign about how the vast left wing conspiracy is out to get him..and he leads in the polls

Trump. The Republican Unravelling of the Most Pompous ahole has begun. Trump is lost and without his "build a tremendous wall" and "I've built a great company" lines to get him applause he is nothing more than an empty suit...one with a tie which hangs about three inches too low

Rubio. Everything the republicans said about Obama in 2008 will apply to Rubio in 2016. He is too young, too inexperienced, misses too many senate votes and has ears that are too big but still it won't matter. Rubio falls into his talking points more confortably than any politician I have ever seen, his ability to deflect any questions and go into his "my father was a bartender and my mother is a maid" thing is amazing to watch.

Q. Senator what do you feel about social security reform

A. Neil, my mother was a maid and my father was a bartender so I know about needing security, it is our greatest threat. We didn't have much but we had each other and that's alright for love, you just have to hold on to what you got. Sometimes it just doesn't make a difference whether you make it or not

Q Senator, What is your position on immigration?

A- listen Maria, I know about immigration as my father was a bartender and my mother was a maid so we had to deal with a lot of immigration from the holiday inn to the days inn. Sometimes my mom would work at one place and other times as the other and that was an important part

Q- senator, what do you think about a no-fly zone over Syria

A- thank you bald guy, when I was a child my father was a bartender and my mother a maid and we knew how important it was to keep the flies away from the food in the bar's kitchen, so we worked hard to form that trust that will continue to strengthen our resolve and arm our friends against Putin and Assad.

Kasich

Our boy has less than 0% chance, he is practical, moderate and smart which means the crazies hate him. He literally got booed a number of times last night. Rooting for him is like rooting for the Browns

Carly

The greatest celebrities are known by only their first name. Madonna, Britney, Justin, Tom and Carly could be right up there. She should just change it to Karly and she might have a chance at making that work. I have nothing to say about her, she is crazy, ran HP into the ground and wore the absolute worst color sweater at the debate. Who chooses puke green for a rendezvous with Rand Paul and Jeb Bush??

Cruz

I have this vision in my head of Cruz knocking on doors trying to drum up support and people just slamming them in his face as they assume he is is just fulfilling his Megan's Law punishment

Jeb

It Is Over. Pack up the tent, send home the guy selling hot-dogs and apologize to the guys who got (free) tickets to see you..nobody thinks you have a shot in hell at this thing. You are an insecure twerp with a crappy haircut and a family name like a noose. Just leave, please

Rand

I am shocked to write this but the most sensible guy on stage was the one whose head looks like it is covered in pubic hair. He is the only one (other than Kasich) with some conviction in his beliefs, the only one who I would genuinely believe would transform Washington and yet he scares the hell out of me like an image of Neil Cavuto on a naked people beach. But he did great last night

Bravo, sir. Bravo.

 

[The Commish]

My point is that it is the system moreso then the politicians.

The politicians created the system and willfully participate in it. They encourage it. Trying to separate the two at this point, in this context seems futile.

 

[The Commish]

Out of curiosity, which countries do you consider to have good healthcare systems?

UAE
Germany
Sweden
Switzerland
Belgium
UK
Japan
Austria
Spain
Singapore
Italy
France

Probably many more....these were just off the top of my head.

 

[RBM]

Rand

He is the only one (other than Kasich) with some conviction in his beliefs,

False. Despite what you think about him Cruz has the most conviction of anyone running.

 

[timschochet]

Rand

He is the only one (other than Kasich) with some conviction in his beliefs,

False. Despite what you think about him Cruz has the most conviction of anyone running.

Really? Because I don't think he believes half of the crazy #### that comes out of his mouth.

 

[joffer]

Rand

He is the only one (other than Kasich) with some conviction in his beliefs,

False. Despite what you think about him Cruz has the most conviction of anyone running.

Really? Because I don't think he believes half of the crazy #### that comes out of his mouth.

i think he believes all of it. That's why he's the scariest of the bunch.

 

[The Commish]

Rand

He is the only one (other than Kasich) with some conviction in his beliefs,

False. Despite what you think about him Cruz has the most conviction of anyone running.

I don't know the guy. All I have to compare are his actions and his words. As of today, they contradict each other. Example? How about his "shrink the gov't" position, sequester position in contrast to having a strong military. Our veterans are woefully underfunded / neglected and it's going to take a substantial amount of gov't growth to take care of them especially as these wars go on.

ETA: There's only one candidate running that's giving our vets any sort of meaningful runtime and he isn't on the GOP side of the house, which is pretty sad given their supposed love of our military.

 

[roadkill1292]

Conviction is overrated and that includes Bernie, too. I want my presidents to be more pragmatic and willing to change course if the evidence suggests it.

 

[CBusAlex]

Since the debate, this thread contains 40 instances of the word "Jeb", and only 15 of "Bush". Whatever else you may say about his campaign so far, it seems he's been pretty successful at rebranding himself away from his brother.

 

[timschochet]

Rand

He is the only one (other than Kasich) with some conviction in his beliefs,

False. Despite what you think about him Cruz has the most conviction of anyone running.

Really? Because I don't think he believes half of the crazy #### that comes out of his mouth.

i think he believes all of it. That's why he's the scariest of the bunch.

we're talking about a guy who went to Harvard, who everybody who knows him describes him as brilliant and incredibly ambitious, who was a champion debater in college taking whichever side he was assigned. So I'm a little skeptical. I think he took a look at today's GOP and quickly realized that the way to advance was to become radically populist, and that's what he's done.

 

[Fennis]

BushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBush

 

[Fennis]

update?

 

[B-Deep]

 

[joffer]

Rand

He is the only one (other than Kasich) with some conviction in his beliefs,

False. Despite what you think about him Cruz has the most conviction of anyone running.

Really? Because I don't think he believes half of the crazy #### that comes out of his mouth.

i think he believes all of it. That's why he's the scariest of the bunch.

we're talking about a guy who went to Harvard, who everybody who knows him describes him as brilliant and incredibly ambitious, who was a champion debater in college taking whichever side he was assigned. So I'm a little skeptical. I think he took a look at today's GOP and quickly realized that the way to advance was to become radically populist, and that's what he's done.

did you pay any attention to his Senate campaign? Nothing's changed. I have no doubt he's smart. Nothing preventing him from being smart and this extreme. He sounds just like his father, who isn't pandering to anyone.

 

[Joe Summer]

update?

You need to add a space between each Bush to make it count.