Hillary or Generic GOP Candidate?

[SClENCE]

If you can't see its relevancy regarding our discussion, I definitely can't help you.

I don't think you can help yourself. You are agreeing that Obamacare is unconstitutional and justifying it by referring to the Patriot act? In this case why don't we just throw out the constitution.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[BidingMyTime]

Redistribution of wealth falls under the ideals of socialism. Perhaps when I used the word socialist I could have phrased in a different way. I can, however, say the the affordable care act is something you would not have seen from Romney.
I personally like the ideas of Paul Ryan (Romney's running mate) when it comes to economics/spending.

The ACA by Romney was a state-level solution for a state-level problem - and in no way does it endorse a federal health care mandate.
"In place of Obamacare, I will pursue policies that give each state the power to craft a health care reform plan that is best for its own citizens. The federal government’s role will be to help markets work by creating a level playing field for competition."

And if you believe that, then I have some prime real estate in FL to sell you. Why in the world would you believe a politicians lies over their actual actions? Romney absolutely supported corporate run health care under the guise of being government run, which is why he implemented it in his home state, Obamacare was completely based off of Romneycare. You are a pharmacy student, so I'm betting you are still pretty young. Follow politics for the next 8 - 10 years and you will see that regardless of what they say, both Democrats and Republicans behave the same in office. Remember Obama saying he would pull troops for Iraq immediately & sign an executive order legalizing abortion in all trimesters in all states and that he was going to legalize on the federal level gay marriage? Yeah, NONE of that happened (OK, several years into his presidency he did pull troops from Iraq and send them to Afghanistan, but he sure didn't end the US involvement in the middle east like he had promised to do his first month in office. Obama didn't keep any of his promises, and there is no chance that Romney would have kept any of his either.....ESPECIALLY since his actions at the state level show his true corporatists beliefs (and 99% of Democrat & Republican elected leaders are corporatists, not democrats or republicans.)

I don't give a whit about Paul Ryan's "ideas" (politicians can and do say anything, its all meaningless), I am far more interested in his voting record which tells me where he really stands, and he is also a corporatist in the exact same line as Clinton/Bush/Obama/Romney.

 

[BidingMyTime]

I won't claim to know a lot about the patriot act, though my impression is that it is unconstitutional. But how is this relevant?

It's pretty obvious, W19 is pointing out that BOTH Democrats & Republicans have trashed the constitution. So, if you care about the constitution, as you are apparently alluding to, why in the world would you vote for either a Democrat or Republican? My FIL is at least honest, he voted Democrat, and he also believes the constitution is "out-dated" and should be thrown out. If you support a Republican or Democrat, than at least be honest in saying that you don't care that neither one respects the US constitution.

 

[W19]

I don't think you can help yourself. You are agreeing that Obamacare is unconstitutional and justifying it by referring to the Patriot act? In this case why don't we just throw out the constitution.

You apparently have no clue and just repeating what you hear... I am done arguing with you.

 

[BidingMyTime]

I don't think Dems want to redistribute wealth as much as they want more money from the rich and more power over the financial lives of others.

The Dems don't want more money from the rich, they have done nothing to stop tax breaks for corporations and have actually supported many measures making it easier for individuals and corporations to get out of paying taxes.

Yes, the Democrats do want more power over the financial lives of others.....so do the Republicans, once again, there is no difference in how either party behaves in power. The only difference is what they say, and the spin they put on their actions.

 

[zelman]

I don't think that Obamacare is in place to solely regulate the insurance marketplace now is it?

So, what is it in place to do?

 

[zelman]

Please explain explain how Obamacare is so much cheaper than Romney's plan. See how it feels to have words put into your mouth in the form of an irrelevant request? This method of debate seems common among the low information liberal type.

Cheaper for whom?

 

[SClENCE]

And if you believe that, then I have some prime real estate in FL to sell you. Why in the world would you believe a politicians lies over their actual actions? Romney absolutely supported corporate run health care under the guise of being government run, which is why he implemented it in his home state, Obamacare was completely based off of Romneycare. You are a pharmacy student, so I'm betting you are still pretty young. Follow politics for the next 8 - 10 years and you will see that regardless of what they say, both Democrats and Republicans behave the same in office. Remember Obama saying he would pull troops for Iraq immediately & sign an executive order legalizing abortion in all trimesters in all states and that he was going to legalize on the federal level gay marriage? Yeah, NONE of that happened (OK, several years into his presidency he did pull troops from Iraq and send them to Afghanistan, but he sure didn't end the US involvement in the middle east like he had promised to do his first month in office. Obama didn't keep any of his promises, and there is no chance that Romney would have kept any of his either.....ESPECIALLY since his actions at the state level show his true corporatists beliefs (and 99% of Democrat & Republican elected leaders are corporatists, not democrats or republicans.)

I don't give a whit about Paul Ryan's "ideas" (politicians can and do say anything, its all meaningless), I am far more interested in his voting record which tells me where he really stands, and he is also a corporatist in the exact same line as Clinton/Bush/Obama/Romney.

Corporatist? Why are we again demonizing economic success, profitability, and innovation? On another note, I believe that Obama should have been more aggressive in the middle east however in order to appeal to the low information voters such as yourself he made the statements that he did.

And again, I'm not the biggest fan of Romney's health care plan (I believe that it is too generous)... however the plan he implemented was obviously not implemented by the federal government and was thus constitutional.

Though we disagree I still like you @BidingMyTime

 

[SClENCE]

Cheaper for whom?

When everyone gets free healthcare someone has to pay for it right? Obama doesn't pay for your Ability out of his own pocket.

But the thing is, when healthcare is handled by the private sector prices drop due to competition. Obamacare eliminates this opportunity to a large extent.

 

[SClENCE]

So, what is it in place to do?

It's a socialist act that relies on healthy young Americans to fund the healthcare of the lower class. Plain and simple. I don't mean to insult your intelligence but this doesn't sound like regulating now does it?

 

[SClENCE]

You apparently have no clue and just repeating what you hear... I am done arguing with you.

I honestly don't even think you have a clue what point you are trying to make anymore.

 

[BidingMyTime]

Corporatist? Why are we again demonizing economic success, profitability, and innovation?

Corporatism is not about demonizing economic success, profitability, and innovation? Where did you get that idea? I strongly support economic success, profitability, and innovation, which is why I strongly lean libertarian. Corporatism stifles economic success, profitability, and innovation. Corporatism is about politicians who favor certain pet corporations, to the detriment of smaller corporations and over individual businesses.

An example of corporatism, is when the government passes as law, completely unnecessary regulations (at the behest of super large corporations), these unnecessary but now legal regulations dramatically drive up the cost and the difficulty for smaller corporations and independent businesses to compete (the super large corporations wanted the regulations knowing that they could easily meet the new law, but that their competitors would have trouble meeting the law.)

Another example of corporatism, is when government agencies ignore law breaking at large, pet corporations, but preferentially go after smaller corporations and independent businesses. In many cases, the fines for these violations are set high enough to bankrupt small corporations and independent businesses, but low enough to be just a cost of doing business for the large, pet corporations (who in most cases paid someone to write the business law or regulation and its penalty to begin with.)

Republicans no longer follow republican principals, they follow corporatist principals (as do Democrats, who no longer follow their original democratic principals) To the detriment of the US.

On another note, I believe that Obama should have been more aggressive in the middle east however in order to appeal to the low information voters such as yourself he made the statements that he did.

Low information voters such as myself? Please, I did not believe any word Obama said, just as I did not believe any word Romney said. You are the gullible one if you think Romney was telling the truth, and Obama was the one lying. They were both lying. Which is why I did not vote for either one.

And again, I'm not the biggest fan of Romney's health care plan (I believe that it is too generous)... however the plan he implemented was obviously not implemented by the federal government and was thus constitutional.

No, I'm pretty sure the constitution guarantees a right to life and liberty, the 4th amendment guarentees a right to property (ie the government can't just come and take your property because you refuse to purchase something from a private corporation.) Romneycare fined people both for not buying a product (FYI, requiring people to buy a product against their will is a type of corporatism), people were also fined for not disclosing on their tax form if they had purchased the mandatory product. What happens when people don't pay their required fine for not supporting certain corporations that offer health insurance? They have their property confiscated (loss of property), if they fight this, they will be arrested (loss of liberty.) Romneycare threatened people unconstitutionally with loss of their liberty & property, regardless of how the Supreme Court chooses to interpret it today, its certain that the writers of the constitution would never have supported people being required to buy a product from a private corporation.

There is no constitutional difference between Romneycare and Obamacare.

Though we disagree I still like you @BidingMyTime

Well, thank you. You remind me a lot of myself 20 years ago....I also believed every word politicians said, I really believed that electing the right person or the right party majority would change the country for the better. I really do understand your line of thinking, but I believe you are completely wrong, and I suspect if you continue following politics for the next 8 - 10 years, your thinking will be change as well. Unfortunately, this is the point where many people just give up and don't bother to vote anymore, when they realize there is no difference between the Democrats & the Republicans. I chose to investigate 3rd parties & I hope you will do as well. There are several excellent 3rd party options, some which hold true to true Democrat principals, some hold true to true Republican principals, and many other options.

 

[zelman]

It's a socialist act that relies on healthy young Americans to fund the healthcare of the lower class. Plain and simple. I don't mean to insult your intelligence but this doesn't sound like regulating now does it?

That does sound like regulating. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't change what it's doing.

You said that OSHA was a regulatory body (and they are). If I respond that, "They're just a bunch of fashion fascists who live to take away my open toed shoes and crybabies who keep teens from having some fun with forklifts," it doesn't make it less true. It's just a negative perspective.

 

[trailerpark]

I want to be able to refinance my federal student loans. I want a super fiscally conservative president who is super liberal on social issues such as abortion, etc... And I want them to be an atheist. Who do I vote for?

 

[Jibby321]

Thoughts on Marco Rubio?

 

[W19]

Only Rand Paul has a chance as a republican... If Rick Santorum stop talking about BS social issues, I think he will not be a bad candidate. He is arguably the only republican who understands that we all are being screwed by big businesses...

 

[Rouelle]

Yeah, I've always kinda liked Santorum too, although I don't know whether he has much of a chance of actually getting elected.

 

[PharmacistReb]

Rubio has my early vote. I like lower income taxes, free trade, capital gains taxes where they are or lower and knowing a hawk is in the Oval. For those that say it doesn't matter, it matters. 80% of what they do is ubiquitous. 20% affects what's in my pocket and whether or not my trips on planes won't end up in the side of a building. So as a result, it matters.

I understand cynicism but realism is still applicable. Bernie Sanders has a snowball's chance in hell and I think I'll pass on someone who considers himself a socialist taking a seat in the White House. Again, I like to keep at least 50% of what I earn. The same with Liz Warren. $20/hour minimum wage just drives up prices of goods that the rest of us are already paying lower prices for. If the entry level guy makes 1/3 of what I make up from 1/6 of what I make, then the world becomes more expensive and we all flounder economically. Pass.

It's all about the Benjamins. And the people on the right protect our wealth. I'll vote for wealth over redistribution every chance I get. Not to mention, the redistribution typically gets passed around Washington and we never see it. We have the Amtrak crash and the left goes ballistic over not enough funding. 6 years ago we passed the most sweeping infrastructure legislation in the history of the galaxy with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act AKA "Stimulus". We were going to build roads and bridges and ports and waterways and railways and all these shovel-ready jobs were going to create this and that. We spent a trillion dollars on a stimulus. 6 years later they're shouting about poor infrastructure.

 

[PharmacistReb]

Hillary is having to make too many promises to pacify the far left right now. The Clinton's have always been center-left and the far left is trying push her leftward. As of right now, she's essentially campaigning for an Obama 3rd term. I don't trust her judgment. I don't know what she's every done that truly qualifies her. I know you can make the argument nobody is truly qualified for this job and that may be true. But I don't want another Bush and I don't want another Clinton. Surely America isn't so lazy that we only elect people based on name recognition. The Bush's and Clinton' have held seats in the upper reaches of the federal government since January of 1981 up until January of 2013. That is absurd. I wish both sides could come together to agree on not electing one of those two.

 

[PharmacistReb]

Also, I think the Patriot Act is fantastic. I don't care if the NSA hears me arguing with my girlfriend. If it stops even one mad man from blowing off people's arms and legs at a marathon or prevents a car bomb from going off in Manhattan or stops hijackers from taking another plane. We can't quantify the number of deaths that have likely been prevented as a result of spying. Those types of things don't get reported. We live in a different world now and every little bit of information helps. Will the NSA be abused or has it been abused? Probably. Has it also saved lives? Definitely.

I will say that I would likely vote for Hillary over Rand Paul. The only Republican I wouldn't vote for would be Rand. I think Rand is out of his mind.

 

[W19]

Yeah, I've always kinda liked Santorum too, although I don't know whether he has much of a chance of actually getting elected.

If he stop talking about birth control/abortion, I think he will go far...

 

[PharmacistReb]

Rick Santorum is not a national candidate. Rick Santorum was the evangelical choice in 2012 because people in the South and Midwest weren't comfortable with Romney. Rick Santorum is now in the most crowded Republican presidential field in the history of the party. Santorum might not even make it to the Iowa caucus. The demographic he was able to obtain in 2012 will be split and splintered among a wide contingent of very similar politicians.

This will be a much different primary season than the one we saw in 2012.

 

[PharmacistReb]

And if you believe that, then I have some prime real estate in FL to sell you. Why in the world would you believe a politicians lies over their actual actions? Romney absolutely supported corporate run health care under the guise of being government run, which is why he implemented it in his home state, Obamacare was completely based off of Romneycare. You are a pharmacy student, so I'm betting you are still pretty young. Follow politics for the next 8 - 10 years and you will see that regardless of what they say, both Democrats and Republicans behave the same in office. Remember Obama saying he would pull troops for Iraq immediately & sign an executive order legalizing abortion in all trimesters in all states and that he was going to legalize on the federal level gay marriage? Yeah, NONE of that happened (OK, several years into his presidency he did pull troops from Iraq and send them to Afghanistan, but he sure didn't end the US involvement in the middle east like he had promised to do his first month in office. Obama didn't keep any of his promises, and there is no chance that Romney would have kept any of his either.....ESPECIALLY since his actions at the state level show his true corporatists beliefs (and 99% of Democrat & Republican elected leaders are corporatists, not democrats or republicans.)

I don't give a whit about Paul Ryan's "ideas" (politicians can and do say anything, its all meaningless), I am far more interested in his voting record which tells me where he really stands, and he is also a corporatist in the exact same line as Clinton/Bush/Obama/Romney.

RomneyCare was 78 pages long. ObamaCare was 2000 pages long. The idea of a mandate to purchase health coverage is the same but the laws are obviously vastly different. A one-size fits all for the entire nation that requires 20,000+ pages of new regulations is no comparison to RomneyCare. Also, RomneyCare ultimately resulted in higher premiums. Why would the Obama Administration model its healthcare approach on that?

In addition -- Massachusetts had about 92% of its population covered on private insurance, Medicare, Medicaid. RomneyCare looked to insure a tiny portion of their state's uninsured. ObamaCare goes much deeper than just mandating people purchase insurance. They can say they modeled it after RomneyCare but that's a stretch. ObamaCare is a behemoth of regulations that is 20 fold greater than Massachusetts' tiny bill.

 

[Old Timer]

Once again, allow me to educate you.

The Massachusetts law applies to the 6.5 million residents of the commonwealth. Obamacare covers more than 300 million people spread across 50 diverse states. Massachusetts began its reform with a rate of uninsured that was half that of the nation as a whole, and it was written to meet the unique needs of state residents. These differences led Governor Mitt Romney to oppose Obamacare. While Romney’s health reform is working in Massachusetts, he believes one model cannot meet the needs of all 50 states. In addition, Oamacare has a much broader scope in that it includes provisions to address healthcare provider shortages, increase wellness and nutrition programs, bolster community health centers, and adjust Medicaid and Medicare.

Obamacare infringes on civil liberties by forcing individuals to engage in commerce. It is constitutional for states to impose such mandates but not for the federal government to do so.

The Supreme Court Says it's constitutional. It is constitutional. The Second amendment says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I think that means that gun ownership should be WELL REGULATED as part of a State Militia. The Supreme court thinks otherwise, so individuals have right to own a gun with or without any association with a state militia because the Supreme Court Says so. That's the way we roll in this country. It doesn't matter what you think and it doesn't matter what I think. What matters in regards to what is or is not constitutional is decided by the nine men and women that it on the Supreme Court.

 

[Old Timer]

For all of you *****s and you have to be a ***** to think the ACA is a socialist program. There are two ways and two ways only to make sure everyone has health insurance. You use a market based approach or you use a government based approach.

The ACA is a market based approach with the government setting the rules for a what a minimum policy must require to be acceptable. There are also definitions of what an exchange is and how it is to be run. There is also the rules for who can get a subsidy. There are rules for Medicaid expansion and there are income mechanisms to offset the cost of the subsidies. That's why it's a goziillion pages long. There are also quality control systems built into the ACA that are helping to hold costs in line.

If he wanted a socialist approach he would have outlawed all insurance and gone single payer or put everyone in Medicare.

There is no way to make insurance affordable for people with pre-exisiting conditions without a wide pool of healthy people paying in. No insurance company would write a policy people can afford. If you are ok with people going without health insurance and showing up at the ER to get patched up and sent home, that's OK. Just say so. In a capitalist system there are risks and rewards. You can risk going without insurance, but when you get sick, you have to be willing to suffer the consequences. We don't like consequences in this society.

We have the best health care in the world with the worst possible delivery system. Say what you want, we spend more for health care than other countries and we have worse outcomes. Not because the care is bad, but because our allocation of resources is out of whack.

We spend between between 22%-50% more per person and between 92% and 123% more as a percentage of GDP on health care.

And that bastion of liberalism, Fox News posted this article:

US health outcomes far worse than other comparable nations, report finds

So, since the ACA is sooooooooooo bad, please tell me what your ideal healthcare system is?

I'm not telling you it's perfect, but you need to check into rehab if you think it's socialist.

 

[SClENCE]

The Supreme Court Says it's constitutional. It is constitutional. The Second amendment says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I think that means that gun ownership should be WELL REGULATED as part of a State Militia. The Supreme court thinks otherwise, so individuals have right to own a gun with or without any association with a state militia because the Supreme Court Says so. That's the way we roll in this country. It doesn't matter what you think and it doesn't matter what I think. What matters in regards to what is or is not constitutional is decided by the nine men and women that it on the Supreme Court.

The supreme count could say that nobody, whether in the militia or not, is allowed to bear arms. That doesn't make it constitutional.

But like you said, it doesn't matter what you think. You see, why don't have to play a guessing game with interpretations. We can simply look at history, and in the months/years after the second amendment was added more than just the militia owned guns. If they intended only for a "well regulated state militia" to own guns they probably would have at least attempted to enforce this... would they not?

 

[SClENCE]

For all of you *****s and you have to be a ***** to think the ACA is a socialist program. There are two ways and two ways only to make sure everyone has health insurance. You use a market based approach or you use a government based approach.

The ACA is a market based approach with the government setting the rules for a what a minimum policy must require to be acceptable. There are also definitions of what an exchange is and how it is to be run. There is also the rules for who can get a subsidy. There are rules for Medicaid expansion and there are income mechanisms to offset the cost of the subsidies. That's why it's a goziillion pages long. There are also quality control systems built into the ACA that are helping to hold costs in line.

If he wanted a socialist approach he would have outlawed all insurance and gone single payer or put everyone in Medicare.

There is no way to make insurance affordable for people with pre-exisiting conditions without a wide pool of healthy people paying in. No insurance company would write a policy people can afford. If you are ok with people going without health insurance and showing up at the ER to get patched up and sent home, that's OK. Just say so. In a capitalist system there are risks and rewards. You can risk going without insurance, but when you get sick, you have to be willing to suffer the consequences. We don't like consequences in this society.

We have the best health care in the world with the worst possible delivery system. Say what you want, we spend more for health care than other countries and we have worse outcomes. Not because the care is bad, but because our allocation of resources is out of whack.

We spend between between 22%-50% more per person and between 92% and 123% more as a percentage of GDP on health care.

And that bastion of liberalism, Fox News posted this article:

US health outcomes far worse than other comparable nations, report finds

So, since the ACA is sooooooooooo bad, please tell me what your ideal healthcare system is?

I'm not telling you it's perfect, but you need to check into rehab

So the United States has the most expensive per capita health care costs. Don't you think the government should focus on lowering costs as opposed to introducing Obamacare which costs 1 trillion dollars and will result in cuts in funding to other programs? I don't at all see your logic. Healthcare is too expensive so lets increase costs? Pure genius.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Realistically, they should have taken complete control of healthcare rather than this **** insurance-required mandate nonsense where there are no real cost controls on pharmaceuticals. The evidence is pretty damning towards the idea that free market healthcare is the most efficacious or the most cost effective. Every single industrialized country in the world except for the US has a great socialized system that keeps costs down and their citizenry healthy. That we still grasp to our archaic system is honestly pretty embarrassing. Having a free market healthcare system is as stupid of an idea as having a free market military. I guess I make more money because of it, so I probably shouldn't complain.

 

[Digsbe]

I think we should make it similar to Canada. Have the states mandate health insurance and have the states be in control of health insurance for that state. Single payer and universal healthcare would keep costs down, for profit insurance only exists to make the insurance company money, not to protect you or advance your own healthcare (unless it somehow saves them money). The system exists for you to pay to benefit an insurance company, not to pay to receive healthcare. The primary focus is their profits, not your care. The free market is great, but in some areas it's not what is needed. The fact that a diagnosis of cancer or other disease can financially bankrupt people even with insurance is a sad thing for the US.

 

[Vain Brother]

The supreme count could say that nobody, whether in the militia or not, is allowed to bear arms. That doesn't make it constitutional.

But like you said, it doesn't matter what you think. You see, why don't have to play a guessing game with interpretations. We can simply look at history, and in the months/years after the second amendment was added more than just the militia owned guns. If they intended only for a "well regulated state militia" to own guns they probably would have at least attempted to enforce this... would they not?

i've gathered from your posts that the longest thing you've ever read is probably a buzzfeed quiz, but for a history lesson on second amendment jurispridence, you could at least read (or skim, in your case) the heller opinion. then you could at least say you aren't just totally making stuff up

 

[BidingMyTime]

RomneyCare was 78 pages long. ObamaCare was 2000 pages long. The idea of a mandate to purchase health coverage is the same but the laws are obviously vastly different. A one-size fits all for the entire nation that requires 20,000+ pages of new regulations is no comparison to RomneyCare. Also, RomneyCare ultimately resulted in higher premiums. Why would the Obama Administration model its healthcare approach on that?
In addition -- Massachusetts had about 92% of its population covered on private insurance, Medicare, Medicaid. RomneyCare looked to insure a tiny portion of their state's uninsured. ObamaCare goes much deeper than just mandating people purchase insurance. They can say they modeled it after RomneyCare but that's a stretch. ObamaCare is a behemoth of regulations that is 20 fold greater than Massachusetts' tiny bill.

Because the more number of politicians that are involved in something, the greater & more unwieldly it becomes. You are ignoring reality & history, if you really think Romney wouldn't have implemented a national health care plan. Perhaps you've forgotten that Republicans made sure Obamacare had enough votes to pass (this is another game the Democrats and Republicans will play when they both support an idea, 1 party will pretend they don't support the idea, but always, there are just enough line-crossers to make sure the measure passes, with the rest of the party being able to tell their constituents that "they tried".....of course, when that party has the majority, they don't do anything about changing the measure they supposedly didn't support.

Mark my words, regardless of who gets elected, even if the next president & congress are 100% Republican, nothing will be done to dismantle the Obamacare they supposedly don't like. I can see them doing a few tweaks to further benefit the insurance corporations, but that is it. How quickly people forget that Bush was the first president who greatly increased socialized medicine with his Medicare Part D plan.

Like I said, you follow politics long enough, you will see the tricks the politicians play and realize there is no difference in action between Republicans and Democrats.

Realistically, they should have taken complete control of healthcare rather than this **** insurance-required mandate nonsense where there are no real cost controls on pharmaceuticals. The evidence is pretty damning towards the idea that free market healthcare is the most efficacious or the most cost effective. Every single industrialized country in the world except for the US has a great socialized system that keeps costs down and their citizenry healthy. That we still grasp to our archaic system is honestly pretty embarrassing. Having a free market healthcare system is as stupid of an idea as having a free market military. I guess I make more money because of it, so I probably shouldn't complain.

I half-way agree with you. The health care system, even before Obamacare was not a true free market. I believe what we have now as a compromise is the worse of each side, rather than a best of each side. I believe either a true free-market health-care system, or a true completely socialized health-care system, would be far better than the corporatist compromise we now have.

 

[zelman]

The evidence is pretty damning towards the idea that free market healthcare is the most efficacious or the most cost effective...Having a free market healthcare system is as stupid of an idea as having a free market military. I guess I make more money because of it, so I probably shouldn't complain.

I believe true free market healthcare actually does keep costs down. But for that, you need to eliminate insurance entirely.

 

[fewaopi]

i used to care about politics. then i realized it's all theatrical bs.

doesn't matter who or what party wins. us plebes are F**k** and will continue to be forever and ever. been like that for 40 years already. once you realize it's all a joke, you relieve a lot of stress, worry, arguing, anger, all those bitter emotions disappear.

honestly our government is like a windows 95 running on today's processing power or modern society. it doesn't fit, it can't respond, it's too inflexible and entrenched.

i'd be up for any government body besides the current one. a government that was more evidence-based than based on blind ideology and ignorance, objective and grounded in facts yet strong on principles and human dignity and that actually listened to its people. there was a NYT article a while back that found that the common or poor man's view on an issue only won whenever the higher classes supported the same cause. all other issues, us poor people lost. pretty much, if you have money, you can help shape this country, your vote doesn't mean anything.

the fact that out of a country of 300 million people we can only turn to a few families to run this country. really, they're the only ones qualified? that's the best this country's got? no wonder there's no leadership. sometimes, benevolent dictators are better than corrupted "democracies"
i pretty much gave up on this country a while ago. lawrence lessig is a great guy and i'd encourage people to watch him. unfortunately i've given up. and my life ironically is so much better.

 

[SClENCE]

i used to care about politics. then i realized it's all theatrical bs.

doesn't matter who or what party wins. us plebes are F**k** and will continue to be forever and ever. been like that for 40 years already. once you realize it's all a joke, you relieve a lot of stress, worry, arguing, anger, all those bitter emotions disappear.

honestly our government is like a windows 95 running on today's processing power or modern society. it doesn't fit, it can't respond, it's too inflexible and entrenched.

i'd be up for any government body besides the current one. a government that was more evidence-based than based on blind ideology and ignorance, objective and grounded in facts yet strong on principles and human dignity and that actually listened to its people. there was a NYT article a while back that found that the common or poor man's view on an issue only won whenever the higher classes supported the same cause. all other issues, us poor people lost. pretty much, if you have money, you can help shape this country, your vote doesn't mean anything.

the fact that out of a country of 300 million people we can only turn to a few families to run this country. really, they're the only ones qualified? that's the best this country's got? no wonder there's no leadership. sometimes, benevolent dictators are better than corrupted "democracies"
i pretty much gave up on this country a while ago. lawrence lessig is a great guy and i'd encourage people to watch him. unfortunately i've given up. and my life ironically is so much better.

Another reason why I believe a lot more issues need to be handled at the state level tbh. Democracy is the greatest form of government but when it gets to a point that the average American is uneducated and voting based on emotion/self interest problems will arise with the candidates that are elected.

 

[SClENCE]

i've gathered from your posts that the longest thing you've ever read is probably a buzzfeed quiz, but for a history lesson on second amendment jurispridence, you could at least read (or skim, in your case) the heller opinion. then you could at least say you aren't just totally making stuff up

I'v gathered from you posts that you have the literal IQ of a goldfish.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states, which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

It would appear as if you are either referencing cases that you know nothing about or are just plan stupid, I'm going to say probably both.

 

[Sparda29]

Also, I think the Patriot Act is fantastic. I don't care if the NSA hears me arguing with my girlfriend. If it stops even one mad man from blowing off people's arms and legs at a marathon or prevents a car bomb from going off in Manhattan or stops hijackers from taking another plane. We can't quantify the number of deaths that have likely been prevented as a result of spying. Those types of things don't get reported. We live in a different world now and every little bit of information helps. Will the NSA be abused or has it been abused? Probably. Has it also saved lives? Definitely.

I will say that I would likely vote for Hillary over Rand Paul. The only Republican I wouldn't vote for would be Rand. I think Rand is out of his mind.

What upsets me about the Patriot Act is that they could use my race/ethnicity/religion and hassle me based on things I look up on the internet, books I buy/check out of the library. Or that they could send undercover cops/federal agents into houses of worship and listen in on people. I've even heard stories of undercover cops going into mosques posing as terrorist recruiters.

"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor security." - Benjamin Franklin

 

[fewaopi]

Another reason why I believe a lot more issues need to be handled at the state level tbh. Democracy is the greatest form of government but when it gets to a point that the average American is uneducated and voting based on emotion/self interest problems will arise with the candidates that are elected.

lol same garbage at the state level. Christie, McDonnell, Sanford, Spitzer, etc, states are as corrupt as feds on every level, even worse many times. problem is people in power can't be held accountable. yes there are a lot of uneducated people voting on emotional highs/lows generated by the loudspeaker for the rich & wealthy media. i see it in this thread. either make people take an exam to qualify to vote or just have a benevolent dictatorship. our democracy is crap compared to others in terms of freedom. honestly i don't think americans are qualified to deserve a democracy anymore.

i very rarely believe anything the media says anymore. even government reports such as the BLS are garbage. you have to sift thru the trash and make your own observations and conclusions and think. since well over 95% of the people don't do that, i don't think americans should have a democracy anymore as it's not the best system anymore. let sheep vote and you get this mess. when you have garbage people coming into government, you're going to get garbage results coming out. the quality of people has gone down, so has leadership and results. of course there are things the government cannot control such as the advance of innovation, globalization, which are inevitable but people don't account for. somehow that becomes the president's or congress's fault.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I believe true free market healthcare actually does keep costs down. But for that, you need to eliminate insurance entirely.

Without someone around to sell insurance, it wouldn't be a free market solution. And then you'd have massive amounts of medical bankruptcies and dead poor people.

 

[zelman]

Without someone around to sell insurance, it wouldn't be a free market solution. And then you'd have massive amounts of medical bankruptcies and dead poor people.

Do you think an MRI costs $10k in countries where there is no insurance?

 

[PharmacistReb]

I don't understand this notion that the government is all good. I read WVU's posts and it's incredibly short-sighted. Who all is willing to bet that WVU doesn't want his current salary chopped in half or worse? Who all here likes making $130k straight out of school?

The government doesn't do things well. This is a fact. Medicare and Social Security are headed towards dissolution in the next 20 years. You think we ought to hand over the reigns of the entire healthcare system to bureaucrats in Washington?

Look, I don't like corporations pushing out the little guy and manipulating the markets as much as the next guy. There is corruption in the private sector just like there's corruption in the public sector. It's just that the private sector is much more likely to create a better product. Should the government have some control over healthcare costs? Absolutely. But we are the main engine of device, surgical technique, and drug-innovation in the world. There's a reason for that -- money. In this country, you can create something, have it trademarked for a number of years and make gobs of money. As a result, people flock to our medical schools and to our country to practice medicine, research, etc.

If you hand over the reigns to the government, then you lose quality over time.

Also, to OldPharm -- Employer-based private insurance has shot through the roof since the advent of the ACA. In addition, the ACA is fully of crony-capitalism. Do yourself a favor in regards to ObamaCare/RomneyCare and read "America's Bitter Pill" by Steve Brill. ObamaCare lines the pockets of big pharma/big insurance/big hospital and hoses down the consumer. Yes, now we're all insured, but healthcare has gotten more costly as a result. And for those of us (the majority of the nation) who have employer-based coverage, the price has increased nationally. "Affordable Care" irony.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Do you think an MRI costs $10k in countries where there is no insurance?

There are no other major 1st world countries without guaranteed social insurance. So that's sort of a ridiculous standard to meet. You can only hypothesize. And I really don't think costs would go down that much, if at all. All of us are grossly overpaid and without an insurance company around to negotiate costs, prices would only increase.

 

[zelman]

There are no other major 1st world countries without guaranteed social insurance. So that's sort of a ridiculous standard to meet. You can only hypothesize. And I really don't think costs would go down that much, if at all. All of us are grossly overpaid and without an insurance company around to negotiate costs, prices would only increase.

Watch PBS Frontline's "sick around the world"

From that program: "R. REID: Here's something else that's different. Japanese patients have much longer hospital stays than Americans, and they love technology, like scans. They have nearly twice as many MRIs per capita as Americans, eight times as many as the Brits.

So how do they keep costs under control? Well, it turns out the Japanese health ministry tightly controls the price of health care, right down to the smallest detail. Every two years, the physicians and the health ministry negotiate a fixed price for every single procedure and drug. Like the items in this sushi bar, everything from open heart surgery to a routine check-up has a standard price, and this price is the same everywhere in Japan.

If a doctor tries to boost his income by increasing the number of procedures, well, then, guess what? At the next negotiation, the government lowers the price. That's what happened with MRIs, which are incredibly cheap in Japan. I asked the country's top health economist, Professor Naoki Ikegami, to tell us how that happened.

In Denver, where I live, if you get an MRI of your neck region, it's $1,200, and the doctor we visited in Japan says he gets $98 for an MRI. So how do you do that?"

 

[SClENCE]

So you want the government to tell you how much you can charge for a product/service?

 

[zelman]

So you want the government to tell you how much you can charge for a product/service?

No. The market can do it, too. The problem is the two separate buyers' markets.

 

[Old Timer]

I don't understand this notion that the government is all good. I read WVU's posts and it's incredibly short-sighted.

I don't understand the notion that government is all bad and the market is all good. Go back to the days of Upton Sinclair and the Jungle. Greed is not good. People will poison other people, market defective products that harm people in order to make money.

Who all is willing to bet that WVU doesn't want his current salary chopped in half or worse? Who all here likes making $130k straight out of school?

That's government that does that. If there was not a Mother F***** Law that required a pharmacist to be on duty all of the time, the chains would cut us out in a heart beat and have super techs filling rxs and a tele pharmacist available by phone.

The government doesn't do things well. This is a fact. Medicare and Social Security are headed towards dissolution in the next 20 years. You think we ought to hand over the reigns of the entire healthcare system to bureaucrats in Washington?

Again, you never allow facts to get on the way of a good story. Medicare works fine and spends way less than private insurance in processing costs. If it were funded properly it would work fine.

Look, I don't like corporations pushing out the little guy and manipulating the markets as much as the next guy. There is corruption in the private sector just like there's corruption in the public sector. It's just that the private sector is much more likely to create a better product. Should the government have some control over healthcare costs? Absolutely. But we are the main engine of device, surgical technique, and drug-innovation in the world. There's a reason for that -- money. In this country, you can create something, have it trademarked for a number of years and make gobs of money. As a result, people flock to our medical schools and to our country to practice medicine, research, etc.

Just bull-****. Do you have any idea how much things would cost if the government did not bankroll basic science research. Do you have any idea who many drugs were basically discovered by government funded research?http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/10/news/la-heb-drug-development-taxpayers-20110210

If you hand over the reigns to the government, then you lose quality over time.

Only when republicans are in charge. The R's hate government and they starve the SH** out of it and then say see, it doesn't work.

Before you go crazy, I don't think the government does everything well and there are many things that need to be done by the private sector. I suggest you read Tom Friedman's Book the World is Flat and he offers a pretty clear idea of the role of government.

Also, to OldPharm -- Employer-based private insurance has shot through the roof since the advent of the ACA. In addition, the ACA is fully of crony-capitalism. Do yourself a favor in regards to ObamaCare/RomneyCare and read "America's Bitter Pill" by Steve Brill. ObamaCare lines the pockets of big pharma/big insurance/big hospital and hoses down the consumer. Yes, now we're all insured, but healthcare has gotten more costly as a result. And for those of us (the majority of the nation) who have employer-based coverage, the price has increased nationally. "Affordable Care" irony.

It's just not so. Healthcare costs have not soared as the ACA opponents have predicted. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-05/obamacare-effect-linked-to-lower-medical-cost-estimates.

Steve Brill does not blame this on the ACA but on corporate greed. Again, it is corporate greed that is driving employers to offload the costs of health insurance to the employees.

 

[SClENCE]

I don't understand the notion that government is all bad and the market is all good. Go back to the days of Upton Sinclair and the Jungle. Greed is not good. People will poison other people, market defective products that harm people in order to make money

You do realize the the role of government is to make the private sector a fair playing field and protect the consumer, not replace it altogether...

You also state that healthcare is too expensive, then proceed to enforce a bill costing a trillion dollars that you have clearly never read to fix the problem. But you read some journal written by some liberal on prozac and watched them talk about it on msnbc so you are in fact an expert.

People like you never meet anyone who can face you with reality... then you can shoot your mouth off somewhere with some communist/socialist/progressives types and everyone says amen and you think you're a real genius.

You continue to spread your ignorance like a disease until someone calls you out on it. Then you simply ignore it and revert back to spewing nonsense about "evil greed and capitalism". See the thing is, you don't like to hear reality... you'd much rather hear about how some "rich corporation" is doing you wrong. The most ironic part is that you make your living working for a 115 billion dollar company.

You're a really sick person and I truly pity you. A man once defined Hell as a place where there is no reason, and you just dragged me into it.

 

[BenJammin]

Laws that mandate a pharmacist be present inside the pharmacy at all times with no regard to lunch breaks or bathroom breaks is as close to slave labor law as it gets. Does anybody else want to know why I left Oklahoma? Because I didn't want to wear diapers to work.

 

[W19]

@BenJammin The government is bad except when I need it...

 

[BenJammin]

@BenJammin The government is bad except when I need it...

Why can't the government perform its basic functions and let us live our lives? This is the problem with the bull**** liberal argument against conservatives because to some people: small government means no government. Such a ridiculous point of view.

 

[SClENCE]

No. The market can do it, too. The problem is the two separate buyers' markets.

Yet millions of American's choose to enter the WORSE of the two buyers' markets. It's clear that the only way you can insure these people is by offering them something for nothing, which is what the average liberal believes they are entitled to anyways in aspects beyond just healthcare.