PDA

View Full Version : Trump calls it quits



999969999
05-18-2011, 04:26 PM
I knew it was a long shot with Trump, but he was the only one I was actually enthused about voting for. He was the only one who would even dare mention the word TARIFF and the only one who wanted to stand up against China.

With him out of the way, I'm throwing all my support to Ron Paul. He's the only current candidate I can stomach. If he doesn't win the primay, and at this point it looks like a long shot, I may end up not even voting at all in 2012.

At this point, it looks almost certain that Obama will get in again for another 4 years. The economy is rebounding. The birther issue has been squashed.

I still wonder what he will do about the 14 trillion dollars of debt. Oh wait! I know! Why not raise taxes! That's what lies ahead. Massive tax increases.

OlegL
05-18-2011, 05:14 PM
Trump is like a clown; if he changes his mind and decides to run for President, he won't get elected. I really hope that Obama will get re-elected.

devilsadvocate
05-18-2011, 09:59 PM
Trump is an attention whore who never had any intention of running. He was feeling ignored so decided to run a publicity stunt.

There is a very appropriate definition of the word "Trump" in the urban dictionary




1. (http://trump.urbanup.com/876052) Trump


Northern to midlands slang for a fart, expelling of wind from the anus.

clocker
05-19-2011, 02:25 AM
I knew it was a long shot with Trump, but he was the only one I was actually enthused about voting for. He was the only one who would even dare mention the word TARIFF and the only one who wanted to stand up against China.
Trump is a bloviating idiot...possibly the best representative of the Republicans currently around.


With him out of the way, I'm throwing all my support to Ron Paul. He's the only current candidate I can stomach. If he doesn't win the primay, and at this point it looks like a long shot, I may end up not even voting at all in 2012.
Good.
Don't vote.

At this point, it looks almost certain that Obama will get in again for another 4 years. The economy is rebounding. The birther issue has been squashed.

I still wonder what he will do about the 14 trillion dollars of debt. Oh wait! I know! Why not raise taxes! That's what lies ahead. Massive tax increases.
You wouldn't know a "massive tax increase" if it bit you in the ass.
We currently pay the lowest effective tax rate since Eisenhower was President.

Oh, BTW, speaking of taxes...
9, how many new hires at your family business since last years extension of the Bush tax cuts?
IIRC, you said the only thing stopping businesses from hiring was "uncertainty" about onerous taxation, so with that fear taken care of, how much have you grown the job market?

mjmacky
05-20-2011, 12:30 PM
I knew it was a long shot with Trump, but he was the only one I was actually enthused about voting for.

I bet you water your plants with Brawndo
Why? Because it's got what plants crave, it's got electrolytes.

999969999
05-21-2011, 08:54 PM
I knew it was a long shot with Trump, but he was the only one I was actually enthused about voting for. He was the only one who would even dare mention the word TARIFF and the only one who wanted to stand up against China.
Trump is a bloviating idiot...possibly the best representative of the Republicans currently around.


With him out of the way, I'm throwing all my support to Ron Paul. He's the only current candidate I can stomach. If he doesn't win the primay, and at this point it looks like a long shot, I may end up not even voting at all in 2012.
Good.
Don't vote.

At this point, it looks almost certain that Obama will get in again for another 4 years. The economy is rebounding. The birther issue has been squashed.

I still wonder what he will do about the 14 trillion dollars of debt. Oh wait! I know! Why not raise taxes! That's what lies ahead. Massive tax increases.
You wouldn't know a "massive tax increase" if it bit you in the ass.
We currently pay the lowest effective tax rate since Eisenhower was President.

Oh, BTW, speaking of taxes...
9, how many new hires at your family business since last years extension of the Bush tax cuts?
IIRC, you said the only thing stopping businesses from hiring was "uncertainty" about onerous taxation, so with that fear taken care of, how much have you grown the job market?

Yeah, you would know, I guess.


I seriously wonder why anyone would want to pay more in taxes. Why not cut spending rather than pay more in taxes?


Actually, yes we have hired one extra person (one of my cousins). I'll admit it has more to do with the fact that the economy (and hence, demand) has definitely picked up for us, than anything else. And there will be a replacement hired for me, when I leave this summer.

clocker
05-22-2011, 02:41 PM
I seriously wonder why anyone would want to pay more in taxes.
Maybe because a marginal increase in taxes would mean that the roads don't destroy my car, that firefighters/police and teachers are available, that the library remains open and the populace is literate enough to read...the list goes on.

Let's take as an example one of the "socialist" countries you pretend to abhor- say, Finland.
I'd pay 51% of income in taxes (which far exceeds any tax bracket in the US).
In exchange, I'd get free education through college/graduate degrees, free health care, a national internet service of 100MB/s and a social safety net (food/medical/legal subsidies)
unknown in America.
I cannot afford a fraction of those services in America.

My theoretically more favorable tax rate turns out to a really bad deal when services rendered are compared.
Americans pay more to get less than any industrialized nation on Earth which is the direct result of corporatizing our country.
Delivering less while charging more is the basic tenet of business and this "Underpants= Profit!" mentality is the new cornerstone of the right wing agenda.

mjmacky
05-23-2011, 05:58 AM
Delivering less while charging more is the basic tenet of business and this "Underpants= Profit!" mentality is the new cornerstone of the right wing agenda.

To be fair, though it is a cornerstone for the conservative agenda, plenty of liberals have their hands in corporate pockets. Most of the bigger offices involve mingling between corporations and politicians, it's a big stakes game. To not be in bed with them makes it very very difficult to win any major election. So what I'm trying to say is that in a country where commercials are so effective, it's baffling, the country is frakked.

bigboab
05-23-2011, 07:34 AM
Do anti communists/socialists take out insurance on their property? Are they happy to accept other insurance payers collectively paying for their loss? If the private insurance firms did not make vast profits then our insurance premiums would cost less. I may just have the wrong mindset, in my dotage, to fathom this contradiction out.:whistling

j2k4
05-26-2011, 09:34 PM
Do anti communists/socialists take out insurance on their property? Are they happy to accept other insurance payers collectively paying for their loss? If the private insurance firms did not make vast profits then our insurance premiums would cost less. I may just have the wrong mindset, in my dotage, to fathom this contradiction out.:whistling

Hah.

I am a contradiction-fathomer from way back.

The trick is to do it 24/7, and not just when you feel like it, or must, due to circumstances.

If you can't do that, try it during your afternoon nap, Bob - warn Missus Bob that you will likely snore a bit more loudly as a consequence.

bigboab
05-26-2011, 10:01 PM
Do anti communists/socialists take out insurance on their property? Are they happy to accept other insurance payers collectively paying for their loss? If the private insurance firms did not make vast profits then our insurance premiums would cost less. I may just have the wrong mindset, in my dotage, to fathom this contradiction out.:whistling

Hah.

I am a contradiction-fathomer from way back.

The trick is to do it 24/7, and not just when you feel like it, or must, due to circumstances.

If you can't do that, try it during your afternoon nap, Bob - warn Missus Bob that you will likely snore a bit more loudly as a consequence.

My afternoon nap is slipping into 24/7.:) Still can't fathom why the right accepts community insurance.:P

j2k4
05-26-2011, 10:20 PM
Hah.

I am a contradiction-fathomer from way back.

The trick is to do it 24/7, and not just when you feel like it, or must, due to circumstances.

If you can't do that, try it during your afternoon nap, Bob - warn Missus Bob that you will likely snore a bit more loudly as a consequence.

My afternoon nap is slipping into 24/7.:) Still can't fathom why the right accepts community insurance.:P

The fact is that costs have lost any sort of association with reality.

Third-party payer is the bugaboo - how ironic, eh?

clocker
05-27-2011, 12:20 AM
The fact is that costs have lost any sort of association with reality.

Cost and reality have a tenuous association at best...in any consumer transaction (see: diamonds).

America's highest paid CEO runs United Health Group...Stephen Hemsley made 102 MILLION FREAKIN DOLLARS!!! last year (source= Forbes) (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/12/ceo-compensation-11_land.html)...so any discussion about health care cost and reality is already warped beyond recognition.

j2k4
05-28-2011, 02:20 PM
The fact is that costs have lost any sort of association with reality.

Cost and reality have a tenuous association at best...in any consumer transaction (see: diamonds).

America's highest paid CEO runs United Health Group...Stephen Hemsley made 102 MILLION FREAKIN DOLLARS!!! last year (source= Forbes) (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/12/ceo-compensation-11_land.html)...so any discussion about health care cost and reality is already warped beyond recognition.

I know how to deal with Mr. Hemsley:

PUT HIM OUT OF BUSINESS!

Eliminate ALL third-party payer programs, including Medicaid/Medicare.

Scratch start - whattaya say?

Who's your Radical, baby? :naughty:

clocker
05-28-2011, 02:22 PM
Eliminate Medicare/Medicaid and replace them with what, exactly?
Medicare has administrative costs three times lower than private insurance plans, so what's the problem?

j2k4
05-28-2011, 03:20 PM
Eliminate Medicare/Medicaid and replace them with what, exactly?

Replace them with - here's a novel idea - cash!

The "problem" with medicare is the same as with private insurance - neither has a fucking conscience.

devilsadvocate
05-28-2011, 04:44 PM
Replace them with - here's a novel idea - cash!


I'd like to ask you non ideological questions, but I need to borrow from ideological arguments to ask the question.

I'm not going to question the argument that the USA has the best, or some might say worst, healthcare because the conclusion depends on what measurement is used.

It has been suggested that the USA has the most advanced healthcare in the world. The USA has produced a heck of a lot of technological and medical advancements. Certainly the rate of advancement has been phenomenal. While the private sector has played a big role in this, government funding has been very significant.

To the questions.

If it were left entirely to the private sector, the free market, and government funding wasn't part of the equation would we have the tech and medicinal advancements we have today?

Without third party insurance (private or government) picking up some of the tab, we had a $50k tab a while back and we had insurance, would there be enough patients able to afford treatment thus making the advancements in medicine profitable enough for the market to invest?

What would you do with those that really can't afford to see the doctor? If you answer the emergency room, how would you pay for it and how do you reconcile that with your pay cash ideal?


My point being, and I really want to keep ideology out of it, is that while paying cash may force doctors to charge less, I feel the revenue loss could hinder the incentive for advancement.

j2k4
05-29-2011, 12:50 AM
Replace them with - here's a novel idea - cash!


I'd like to ask you non ideological questions, but I need to borrow from ideological arguments to ask the question.

I'm not going to question the argument that the USA has the best, or some might say worst, healthcare because the conclusion depends on what measurement is used.

It has been suggested that the USA has the most advanced healthcare in the world. The USA has produced a heck of a lot of technological and medical advancements. Certainly the rate of advancement has been phenomenal. While the private sector has played a big role in this, government funding has been very significant.

To the questions.

If it were left entirely to the private sector, the free market, and government funding wasn't part of the equation would we have the tech and medicinal advancements we have today?

Without third party insurance (private or government) picking up some of the tab, we had a $50k tab a while back and we had insurance, would there be enough patients able to afford treatment thus making the advancements in medicine profitable enough for the market to invest?

What would you do with those that really can't afford to see the doctor? If you answer the emergency room, how would you pay for it and how do you reconcile that with your pay cash ideal?


My point being, and I really want to keep ideology out of it, is that while paying cash may force doctors to charge less, I feel the revenue loss could hinder the incentive for advancement.

Here's my non-ideological answer:

The Doctor performs a service - for you - and you receive a bill for those services.

Costs should be a fraction of their current level, and they would be, had third-party payer never existed.

If you end up owing the Doctor, so what?

Nobody seems to have a problem carrying an auto loan or a mortgage, so you've got a medical balance, too.

Big deal.

I've dealt with this in this very forum on many other occasions - try a search.

devilsadvocate
05-29-2011, 01:35 AM
Here's my non-ideological answer:

The Doctor performs a service - for you - and you receive a bill for those services.

Costs should be a fraction of their current level, and they would be, had third-party payer never existed.
why is it that hospitals generally charge cash payers more than they charge insurance companies for the same treatment? often 3+ times more.
If you end up owing the Doctor, so what?

Many companies go out of business because they are owed money, how many doctors would we have left if they treated patients that can't afford payments? How many doctors would serve poor areas? I see signs in doctors offices stating that uninsured patients have to pay before they see the doctor

Nobody seems to have a problem carrying an auto loan or a mortgage, so you've got a medical balance, too.

Big deal.

But those people have enough wherewithal to obtain a mortgage or car loan in the first place. Someone on minimum wage would at best qualify for a high interest payday loan. What makes you think they could afford to pay off a $50k+ medical debt if they couldn't get a mortgage or car loan and who would lend them the money to see the doctor?
I seem to remember you blaming poor people getting mortgages for busting the housing market, doesn't the same thinking apply here?


I've dealt with this in this very forum on many other occasions - try a search.

You didn't answer the question about where we would be in terms of medical advancement if it were purely market driven cash only services. Unless shown otherwise I doubt you have dealt with this.

j2k4
05-29-2011, 02:18 AM
Here's my non-ideological answer:

The Doctor performs a service - for you - and you receive a bill for those services.

Costs should be a fraction of their current level, and they would be, had third-party payer never existed.
why is it that hospitals generally charge cash payers more than they charge insurance companies for the same treatment? often 3+ times more.
If you end up owing the Doctor, so what?

Many companies go out of business because they are owed money, how many doctors would we have left if they treated patients that can't afford payments? How many doctors would serve poor areas? I see signs in doctors offices stating that uninsured patients have to pay before they see the doctor

Nobody seems to have a problem carrying an auto loan or a mortgage, so you've got a medical balance, too.

Big deal.

But those people have enough wherewithal to obtain a mortgage or car loan in the first place. Someone on minimum wage would at best qualify for a high interest payday loan. What makes you think they could afford to pay off a $50k+ medical debt if they couldn't get a mortgage or car loan and who would lend them the money to see the doctor?
I seem to remember you blaming poor people getting mortgages for busting the housing market, doesn't the same thinking apply here?


I've dealt with this in this very forum on many other occasions - try a search.

You didn't answer the question about where we would be in terms of medical advancement if it were purely market driven cash only services. Unless shown otherwise I doubt you have dealt with this.

Without any proofs, I'm going to say we'd be at least as far, perhaps farther, but we'll never know, now...I don't see a way back, anymore, that doesn't involve a total collapse/default of the economic end of healthcare.

It's truly the most powerful constituency extant.

Put it this way:

Fixing the health-care "payment" crisis would be tantamount to a successful excision of lawyers from our congress.

Lawyer-politicians earn their pay by tying the system in knots only they can untie, and if they can't, they don't care, c'est la guerre'.

As to the rest, if there are no insurance companies, all of those problems disappear, or ebb to manageable levels.

devilsadvocate
05-30-2011, 08:07 PM
Without any proofs, I'm going to say we'd be at least as far, perhaps farther.

I appreciate there is no way of knowing, but how do you come to this theory?

re- "at least as far". Where would the funding and incentive have come from to have been able to keep pace?


re- "perhaps farther". What about the funding from government and private insurance paying for treatments most couldn't dream of funding for themselves could possibly have hindered advancement?

You see my theory is that government and private insurance funding has made inovation profitable enough for innovation investment to be viable as far as technology is concerned and government funding has made research into disease, cause and treatment, possible. without that funding medical research would probably be profitable enough to produce treatments like viagra. Pharmaceutical companies tend to only invest their own money in competing drugs for ones already on the market. Nearly all new cures are from government funded research.

j2k4
05-30-2011, 10:57 PM
Without any proofs, I'm going to say we'd be at least as far, perhaps farther.

I appreciate there is no way of knowing, but how do you come to this theory?

re- "at least as far". Where would the funding and incentive have come from to have been able to keep pace?


re- "perhaps farther". What about the funding from government and private insurance paying for treatments most couldn't dream of funding for themselves could possibly have hindered advancement?

You see my theory is that government and private insurance funding has made inovation profitable enough for innovation investment to be viable as far as technology is concerned and government funding has made research into disease, cause and treatment, possible. without that funding medical research would probably be profitable enough to produce treatments like viagra. Pharmaceutical companies tend to only invest their own money in competing drugs for ones already on the market. Nearly all new cures are from government funded research.

Call it a wild-ass guess, I don't care - it's my read, and I'm entitled to it.

If you want to worry me about it, take your own guess and I'll question that.

Btw - that last bit of yours?

Tell me more, why don't you.

mjmacky
05-31-2011, 04:09 AM
Btw - that last bit of yours?

Tell me more, why don't you.

NIH and CDC funding, similar benefactors around the world as well.

j2k4
05-31-2011, 08:48 PM
Btw - that last bit of yours?

Tell me more, why don't you.

NIH and CDC funding, similar benefactors around the world as well.

Ah, there's certainly more to that, isn't there.

A bit fussed for time, just now...

mjmacky
05-31-2011, 11:36 PM
Of course it isn't so simple, I just didn't want to get into it, seems like to much effort

j2k4
06-01-2011, 01:28 AM
Of course it isn't so simple, I just didn't want to get into it, seems like to much effort

I agree 1000%; to make an honest case for the G is an awfully elastic proposition.

mjmacky
06-01-2011, 03:27 AM
I love making lengthy arguments, but only when I can do it with some conviction, and perhaps there's some passion in it. In this case, I both appreciate and hate our system for funding research. It is mostly publicly funded, but I have lost respect for that system. Disease and health research has been made possible because of it, but typically you need to sell your research with some novelty to get funded. The way around that is to think of some novel bullshit, get funded, and use the money to fund the more pragmatic studies in addition to meeting your grant requirements for the original proposal.

NIH, CDC, NSF (MRC in UK), all government funding agencies. The NIH is the biggest funding entity for medical research worldwide. There are many private corporate funding sources, but the rewards are smaller when they fund externally. These companies can put their own money into R&D, but they often try to get government funding (not only for the free money, but also for the status). They have a profit motive though, and most critical medical research doesn't revolve around profitable ventures. Case in point, pharmaceutical research is a factor when accounting for private funding (and the numbers are significant). It would take a hell of a lot of accounting and perspective to find out how much of it is useful. Even if that effort was undertaken, it's subject to major criticism, as everyone states their research is important (publicly). I do believe everyone could agree that working on a purely profit motive though would obviously be detrimental in advancing medical/scientific understanding. We would need all kinds of crises just to get anywhere useful.

So that's about as short as I could make it, didn't have enough time to make it shorter...

j2k4
06-01-2011, 08:15 PM
I love making lengthy arguments, but only when I can do it with some conviction, and perhaps there's some passion in it. In this case, I both appreciate and hate our system for funding research. It is mostly publicly funded, but I have lost respect for that system. Disease and health research has been made possible because of it, but typically you need to sell your research with some novelty to get funded. The way around that is to think of some novel bullshit, get funded, and use the money to fund the more pragmatic studies in addition to meeting your grant requirements for the original proposal.

NIH, CDC, NSF (MRC in UK), all government funding agencies. The NIH is the biggest funding entity for medical research worldwide. There are many private corporate funding sources, but the rewards are smaller when they fund externally. These companies can put their own money into R&D, but they often try to get government funding (not only for the free money, but also for the status). They have a profit motive though, and most critical medical research doesn't revolve around profitable ventures. Case in point, pharmaceutical research is a factor when accounting for private funding (and the numbers are significant). It would take a hell of a lot of accounting and perspective to find out how much of it is useful. Even if that effort was undertaken, it's subject to major criticism, as everyone states their research is important (publicly). I do believe everyone could agree that working on a purely profit motive though would obviously be detrimental in advancing medical/scientific understanding. We would need all kinds of crises just to get anywhere useful.

So that's about as short as I could make it, didn't have enough time to make it shorter...

Again, as you say, it doesn't pay to get hip-deep in something difficult-to-finish.

For me, the research end of it goes awry when the war is over, and the benefits of a purpose-driven and highly-directed effort are lost/misplaced in the ensuing battle to maintain the sinecure.

Well - we're only human, aren't we, but the problem now is we can't summon a decent effort, even while we are fighting a couple of wars.

Snee
06-02-2011, 09:46 AM
Is anyone really surprised that Donald Trump won't be your next president? Really?

mjmacky
06-02-2011, 10:37 AM
Jon Stewart rails into Trump's failed attempt to host Palin as a New Yorker on Wednesday's Daily Show (01 June 2011). It's fucking hilarious.

j2k4
06-02-2011, 08:41 PM
Is anyone really surprised that Donald Trump won't be your next president? Really?

Snee, old pal, you would not believe the respect that frigging clown gets in some quarters.

Enough for several-times-several news cycles, as we've seen.

However, knowing Donald as we do, we could predict with certainty that, if it weren't for Celebrity Apprentice, and the camera time it represents, Donald might have stuck it out another week-or-two.

Frankly, it comes down to a fear of press conferences - I mean, too much bullshit is too much bullshit, and even the press knows that.

Trivia:

I can name-drop Trump.

My little sister has taken his deposition on several occasions, and recorded him on any number of others; last time he brought her a bottled water, which she refused, of course.

Apparently she hurt his feelings.

Remember the NYT article recounting his 'testimony' swearing up-and-down as to his billionaire status?

That was her.

999969999
06-07-2011, 04:51 PM
Is anyone really surprised that Donald Trump won't be your next president? Really?

Snee, old pal, you would not believe the respect that frigging clown gets in some quarters.

Enough for several-times-several news cycles, as we've seen.

However, knowing Donald as we do, we could predict with certainty that, if it weren't for Celebrity Apprentice, and the camera time it represents, Donald might have stuck it out another week-or-two.

Frankly, it comes down to a fear of press conferences - I mean, too much bullshit is too much bullshit, and even the press knows that.

Trivia:

I can name-drop Trump.

My little sister has taken his deposition on several occasions, and recorded him on any number of others; last time he brought her a bottled water, which she refused, of course.

Apparently she hurt his feelings.

Remember the NYT article recounting his 'testimony' swearing up-and-down as to his billionaire status?

That was her.

Trump was the only candidate who dealt with the core issue facing America: as a nation, we cannot continue to spend more than we take in.

That is true for government, but also for us on a national level. We cannot continue to spend more of our money on foreign made goods than we sell to other countries. Ultimately this trade deficit is what is causing our economic problems as well as our government deficits.

The only candidate who even dared to mention the idea of tariffs on Chinese made goods was Trump. He was the only one who admitted that they are not playing fair with us, and the only way to deal with their use of slave labor and unfair monetary practices is to make Chinese made goods more expensive to buy than American made goods, and thus we would start manufacturing things here again.

Ultimately, it is difficult to build a strong economy by delivering pizzas to one another, rather than manufacturing things and selling them to other people. Until we figure that out as a nation, we aren't going to turn this thing around.

So, there goes another 4 years down the drain.

mjmacky
06-07-2011, 06:40 PM
Trump was the only candidate who dealt with the core issue facing America: as a nation, we cannot continue to spend more than we take in.

That is true for government, but also for us on a national level. We cannot continue to spend more of our money on foreign made goods than we sell to other countries. Ultimately this trade deficit is what is causing our economic problems as well as our government deficits.

The only candidate who even dared to mention the idea of tariffs on Chinese made goods was Trump. He was the only one who admitted that they are not playing fair with us, and the only way to deal with their use of slave labor and unfair monetary practices is to make Chinese made goods more expensive to buy than American made goods, and thus we would start manufacturing things here again.

Ultimately, it is difficult to build a strong economy by delivering pizzas to one another, rather than manufacturing things and selling them to other people. Until we figure that out as a nation, we aren't going to turn this thing around.

So, there goes another 4 years down the drain.

Yeah surely, we need Trump to lecture us on trade deficits with China:
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/27/trump_made_in_china

devilsadvocate
06-07-2011, 06:58 PM
How are tariffs on imported goods going to reduce manufacturing costs here? American companies can manufacture here and compete on price with imported goods. The problem is they can make more profit by outsourcing their labor to sweatshops in third world countries while selling the product here for the same price.

Government hasn't caused outsourcing, ignoring the fact that we allow tax breaks for American companies that do it, the private sector is wholly responsible for our loss of manufacturing. Of course the fact that we as a nation don't try to buy American made goods is the real fuel for the vehicle.

I know Clocker will probably make a comment about the quality of American made goods, but that is a result of a profit driven desire to race to the bottom. It appears that in America there is a desire to become a third world society where labor is as disposable as the goods they produce. Quality, it appears, has been deemed bad for the bottom line. Why make a light bulb that lasts for a decade? It doesn't cost much more to produce it, but you can make them to only last a year and force the consumer to replace it.

bigboab
06-07-2011, 07:37 PM
Maybe we should go back to bartering.:)

j2k4
06-07-2011, 07:47 PM
Maybe we should go back to bartering.:)

And soon you'd look out your window to see Trump bartering with your property.

bigboab
06-07-2011, 08:00 PM
He is already doing it. He is creating 'The best golf resort in the world' in the north of Scotland. He is also railroading anyone who stands in his way. He put a fence round one of the protesting properties and sent the owner a bill for the work.:angry:

j2k4
06-07-2011, 08:23 PM
He is already doing it. He is creating 'The best golf resort in the world' in the north of Scotland. He is also railroading anyone who stands in his way. He put a fence round one of the protesting properties and sent the owner a bill for the work.:angry:

Well, then.

clocker
06-07-2011, 11:04 PM
I know Clocker will probably make a comment about the quality of American made goods, but that is a result of a profit driven desire to race to the bottom.
And here I am.
Oddly, I don't recall ever vilifying American manufacturing expertise, after all, we basically invented mass production and were certainly the first society to really enjoy the fruits of said production.
America had a standard of living in the 1960's that most countries have yet to reach today but that heyday is long gone.

I doubt-no, change that, I KNOW we could not put a man on the moon today...because there's no immediate profit to be made.
America morphed from making durable goods into making money and the further from the physical, the better.
Why make a widget when a credit default swap is so much easier and more profitable?

devilsadvocate
06-07-2011, 11:34 PM
Oddly, I don't recall ever vilifying American manufacturing expertise,
I haven't said you had.

You have, however, bemoaned the quality of American made products. It's not that they don't have the expertise to make quality products, it's that they decided to make sub standard products, for whatever reason.

I seem to recall a comment from you when I suggested that American biker patriotism saved Harley Davidson.



I doubt-no, change that, I KNOW we could not put a man on the moon today...because there's no immediate profit to be made.
While I find it odd that it would take us 10 years to produce a craft suitable for the task 4 decades after we did it with less computing power than found in a mid nineties automobile, I wholehearted believe that the private sector would never have achieved this, for the profit reason you pointed to.


America morphed from making durable goods into making money and the further from the physical, the better.
Why make a widget when a credit default swap is so much easier and more profitable? Can't disagree much with that.

clocker
06-08-2011, 12:33 AM
I seem to recall a comment from you when I suggested that American biker patriotism saved Harley Davidson.
Almost certainly I did...my disdain for HD runs deep.
While I find it odd that it would take us 10 years to produce a craft suitable for the task 4 decades after we did it with less computing power than found in a mid nineties automobile, I wholehearted believe that the private sector would never have achieved this, for the profit reason you pointed to.
The moon landing is a sterling example of the kind of project that only a government can pull off, mainly because of the lack of an immediately apparent profit path.
There certainly was a wealth of money to be made off the various technologies that the space effort produced however.


America morphed from making durable goods into making money and the further from the physical, the better.
Why make a widget when a credit default swap is so much easier and more profitable? Can't disagree much with that.
It's the mantra of our times.
"Easy, cheap & profitable" defines the new American entrepreneur.

devilsadvocate
06-08-2011, 02:43 PM
I seem to recall a comment from you when I suggested that American biker patriotism saved Harley Davidson.
Almost certainly I did...my disdain for HD runs deep.


I had a moment of boredom to fill, this was what I was trying to recall.



The whole concept of "Buy American" has always escaped me.
To knowingly and willfully invest in a substandard product seems like the very antithesis of being American.

Don't get me started on Harley Davidson...my hatred is deep and boundless.

On a side note, re. the subject of that thread, it appears that the bailout worked. I make no comment as to the quality of the product, but at least one section of American manufacturing is still running today because of government emergency loans. I use loan instead of bailout because it is being payed back (apparently with interest, so the taxpayer is going to make on the deal).

clocker
06-08-2011, 02:53 PM
Harley is a special case and I refrain from using them as an exemplar of American tech.
HD builds inferior crap because that's what their customers want, not because they can't do any better.

Snee
06-09-2011, 08:52 PM
I'll bemoan the quality of american made products too.

Not everything. You've got as good small businesses and craftsmen as any, but some of the large production factory-made stuff is as bad as crap out of Hong Kong or mainland China (not saying crap is all they make either, mind you).


we basically invented mass production and were certainly the first society to really enjoy the fruits of said production.

Err, no.

I wouldn't argue with the rest though, other than to say that putting profits above all else is getting all too common elsewhere, too, sometimes with american influences speeding that up.



But be all that as it may, the fact that Donald Trump gets taken seriously in the political arena by anyone reads like some kind of joke. He's a mentalist. But then again, so is Ron Paul, and half the internets loved him the last time around.

j2k4
06-09-2011, 09:01 PM
we basically invented mass production and were certainly the first society to really enjoy the fruits of said production.

Err, no.

I wouldn't argue with the rest though, other than to say that putting profits above all else is getting all too common elsewhere, too, sometimes with american influences speeding that up.

So, we Americans shouldn't claim credit for ruining the entire planet, rather better to just suffer the blame for having done it?

clocker
06-09-2011, 09:06 PM
we basically invented mass production and were certainly the first society to really enjoy the fruits of said production.

Err, no.

Explain, please.

Snee
06-09-2011, 11:20 PM
Err, no.

Explain, please.

The industrial revolution, my good man. When you say "mass production", and "first" I think of british canneries and the like. Not saying Henry Ford or his conveyor belts weren't brilliant, or owt, though.


So, we Americans shouldn't claim credit for ruining the entire planet, rather better to just suffer the blame for having done it?

Bit of a leap from one to the other, but if that's you want to take from that, why not?

On a slightly less vague note, I do think that America's influence on ways of doing business and financial policies around the world is huge. Not everywhere, but enough so it seems that it, as a nation, should take some of the blame for turning the world more towards a more callous kind of capitalism (or capitalism at all)*. Personally, I think that had gotten even more noticeable under Trump. But then again, maybe I'm overestimating what he could have done for or to America and in extension the rest of the world.

*Not that the EU isn't doing its part.

j2k4
06-10-2011, 12:31 AM
Explain, please.

The industrial revolution, my good man. When you say "mass production", and "first" I think of british canneries and the like. Not saying Henry Ford or his conveyor belts weren't brilliant, or owt, though.


So, we Americans shouldn't claim credit for ruining the entire planet, rather better to just suffer the blame for having done it?

Bit of a leap from one to the other, but if that's you want to take from that, why not?

On a slightly less vague note, I do think that America's influence on ways of doing business and financial policies around the world is huge. Not everywhere, but enough so it seems that it, as a nation, should take some of the blame for turning the world more towards a more callous kind of capitalism (or capitalism at all)*. Personally, I think that had gotten even more noticeable under Trump. But then again, maybe I'm overestimating what he could have done for or to America and in extension the rest of the world.

*Not that the EU isn't doing its part.

That you would even think to say "turning the world more towards a more callous kind of capitalism...under Trump" is a pretty solid indication of the pervasive type of mis-perception that prevails in your neck of the woods, Snee.

That last part is the worst, though - "under Trump"?

Egad.

bigboab
06-10-2011, 07:28 AM
Snny Snee is correct Kev. You are looking at the U.S. from the inside. The rest of the world has the opposite view.(nothing like stating the obvious:) ). From my experience 'outsiders' percieve the U.S. the same as many Americans percieve Texans(sorry Skiz :)), loud, abrasive, intrusive and railroading at every opportunity. A statement I heard often in my sojourns to your part of the world was. 'You can always tell a Texan, Nothing'.

If you ever wonder why the U.S.(At the moment) is reviled by the rest of the world, the above statement will give you a rough idea.

p.s. I have some friends who are American(Not anymore!.:rolleyes:)

j2k4
06-10-2011, 09:28 PM
Snny Snee is correct Kev. You are looking at the U.S. from the inside. The rest of the world has the opposite view.(nothing like stating the obvious:) ). From my experience 'outsiders' percieve the U.S. the same as many Americans percieve Texans(sorry Skiz :)), loud, abrasive, intrusive and railroading at every opportunity. A statement I heard often in my sojourns to your part of the world was. 'You can always tell a Texan, Nothing'.

If you ever wonder why the U.S.(At the moment) is reviled by the rest of the world, the above statement will give you a rough idea.

p.s. I have some friends who are American(Not anymore!.:rolleyes:)

Off-point, Robert.

What's this "Under Trump" deal?

Is he 'over' something?

Something I don't know about?

Is he being prosecuted, over there?

Sounds like he should be...if not, why not?

Can't you deal with Trump?

mjmacky
06-10-2011, 11:54 PM
What's this "Under Trump" deal?

Is he 'over' something?


Besides overrated and overexposed?
Overtly racist?

j2k4
06-11-2011, 02:43 AM
Trump is a self-promoting caricature.

That is all.

clocker
06-11-2011, 05:01 AM
Way to pee on 9's hope there, Kev, Trump was his dream candidate.
I'm guessing he moves to Santorum now.

mjmacky
06-11-2011, 08:38 AM
Way to pee on 9's hope there, Kev, Trump was his dream candidate.
I'm guessing he moves to Santorum now.

Only now is he "moving out to college". It might take him a year or two before he tries santorum

Snee
06-11-2011, 10:45 AM
The industrial revolution, my good man. When you say "mass production", and "first" I think of british canneries and the like. Not saying Henry Ford or his conveyor belts weren't brilliant, or owt, though.


So, we Americans shouldn't claim credit for ruining the entire planet, rather better to just suffer the blame for having done it?

Bit of a leap from one to the other, but if that's you want to take from that, why not?

On a slightly less vague note, I do think that America's influence on ways of doing business and financial policies around the world is huge. Not everywhere, but enough so it seems that it, as a nation, should take some of the blame for turning the world more towards a more callous kind of capitalism (or capitalism at all)*. Personally, I think that had gotten even more noticeable under Trump. But then again, maybe I'm overestimating what he could have done for or to America and in extension the rest of the world.

*Not that the EU isn't doing its part.

That you would even think to say "turning the world more towards a more callous kind of capitalism...under Trump" is a pretty solid indication of the pervasive type of mis-perception that prevails in your neck of the woods, Snee.

That last part is the worst, though - "under Trump"?

Egad.

:blink: Under. As in with with him somewhat in charge of the USA. Or, at least influencing your policies the same way other presidents have done.

As for the rest, to name an example of callous capitalism: Over here, the concept of being guilty until proven innocent was a largely uncommon idea, legally speaking. But thanks to primarily american owned companies pressuring and lobbying, an addendum to our copyright laws was made allowing companies to start sending out letters demanding huge and disproportional fines for file piracy, and suing people through civil court.

The proposal for what I'm talking about came through the EU (although also originally heavily influenced by american companies and willed into being by the same), but the implementation of it (to a harsher extent than asked for by the EU) had companies pouring money into lobbying our politicians into making the "correct" decision. It was also passed without being put to a vote, which is still strange to some of us (although understandable, as they'd never gotten it passed otherwise).

But that's really just an example, another one would be what Bob mentions about Trump in Scotland.

Point is, american companies have grown a bit too huge and influential, and can get away with things I'm not comfortable with, just by pouring money at the right targets. This in turn probably means that other companies will band together and follow suit to stay competitive.

And speaking of banding together, I'm pretty sure we'd not have the EU, or the EU playing as big a part, in our lives without the US needing to be countered.

clocker
06-11-2011, 12:46 PM
Point is, american companies have grown a bit too huge and influential...
You're referring to multinational corporations, they pledge allegiance to profit, not America.

j2k4
06-11-2011, 02:14 PM
:blink: Under. As in with with him somewhat in charge of the USA. Or, at least influencing your policies the same way other presidents have done.

As for the rest, to name an example of callous capitalism: Over here, the concept of being guilty until proven innocent was a largely uncommon idea, legally speaking. But thanks to primarily american owned companies pressuring and lobbying, an addendum to our copyright laws was made allowing companies to start sending out letters demanding huge and disproportional fines for file piracy, and suing people through civil court.

The proposal for what I'm talking about came through the EU (although also originally heavily influenced by american companies and willed into being by the same), but the implementation of it (to a harsher extent than asked for by the EU) had companies pouring money into lobbying our politicians into making the "correct" decision. It was also passed without being put to a vote, which is still strange to some of us (although understandable, as they'd never gotten it passed otherwise).

But that's really just an example, another one would be what Bob mentions about Trump in Scotland.

Point is, american companies have grown a bit too huge and influential, and can get away with things I'm not comfortable with, just by pouring money at the right targets. This in turn probably means that other companies will band together and follow suit to stay competitive.

And speaking of banding together, I'm pretty sure we'd not have the EU, or the EU playing as big a part, in our lives without the US needing to be countered.




Point is, american companies have grown a bit too huge and influential...
You're referring to multinational corporations, they pledge allegiance to profit, not America.

Yeah, that ^.

Snee:

How do you feel about George Soros?

devilsadvocate
06-11-2011, 04:00 PM
How do you feel about George Soros?

He is hated because of his political leanings. If it wasn't for them he would be a conservative hero of Reagan proportions.

j2k4
06-12-2011, 01:32 PM
How do you feel about George Soros?

He is hated because of his political leanings. If it wasn't for them he would be a conservative hero of Reagan proportions.

He is "hated"?

By whom?

clocker
06-12-2011, 07:56 PM
He is "hated"?

By whom?
By Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers, for starters.

j2k4
06-12-2011, 11:41 PM
He is "hated"?

By whom?
By Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers, for starters.

Were they who devilsadvocate was referring to?

clocker
06-13-2011, 12:03 AM
No clue.
How do you feel about Soros?

999969999
06-13-2011, 12:30 AM
Way to pee on 9's hope there, Kev, Trump was his dream candidate.
I'm guessing he moves to Santorum now.

No. Ron Paul.

He doesn't stand a chance, either, but could you just imagine for a few seconds what it would be like it he did become president?

999969999
06-13-2011, 12:33 AM
He is hated because of his political leanings. If it wasn't for them he would be a conservative hero of Reagan proportions.

He is "hated"?

By whom?

Glenn Beck and Michael Savage hate him.

If what they say about him is correct, the word treason comes to mind.

devilsadvocate
06-13-2011, 03:15 AM
Glenn Beck and Michael Savage hate him.

If what they say about him is correct, the word treason comes to mind.

Have you bothered to find out or is their word good enough for you?

mjmacky
06-13-2011, 11:58 AM
If Glenn Beck liked me, I'd but a bullet in my abdomen, and let myself bleed out in a gutter.

999969999
06-13-2011, 02:02 PM
If Glenn Beck liked me, I'd but a bullet in my abdomen, and let myself bleed out in a gutter.

And reduce the surplus population.

999969999
06-13-2011, 02:07 PM
Glenn Beck and Michael Savage hate him.

If what they say about him is correct, the word treason comes to mind.

Have you bothered to find out or is their word good enough for you?

As far as I can tell, from everything I have read about him so far, they're right about him. And that's from two people who hate each other. Michael Savage and Glenn Beck don't get along with each other at all.

devilsadvocate
06-13-2011, 03:06 PM
As far as I can tell, from everything I have read about him so far, they're right about him. And that's from two people who hate each other. Michael Savage and Glenn Beck don't get along with each other at all.

What have you read? Were they credible fact orientated sources or the usual kind we see you quote here? Remember there is a difference between accusation and guilt.

Next I'd love to read your explanation as to the significance of Beck and Savage not getting along giving factual weight to their opinions.


You've, by default, accused a man of treason, a capital crime. All you've offered as evidence is hearsay,without actually saying what was said, from two people of dubious mental stability who, publicly at least, appear divorced from reality.

I for one would like to know what you think he did that warrants this serious charge and what evidence you have as proof.


Make your case. Seeing as you are soon to be a student of higher learning I expect the accusation to actually fit the definition of the crime you have accused him of.

Snee
06-13-2011, 06:28 PM
Point is, american companies have grown a bit too huge and influential...
You're referring to multinational corporations, they pledge allegiance to profit, not America.

Fair point. America has made it easy for them to become what they are, though, by (in my opinion) slack regulations, and sometimes direct support in what I'd deem unfair business practices. For instance I read some bit about stuff on wikileaks about representatives of the US helping Lockheed, I think it was, in that norwegian airplane deal (F35 vs JAS, google it if you're curious), by screwing with supply lines for componentry for the competitor and perhaps applying a bit of pressure elsewhere as well.





Point is, american companies have grown a bit too huge and influential...
You're referring to multinational corporations, they pledge allegiance to profit, not America.

Yeah, that ^.

Snee:

How do you feel about George Soros?

Not (been interested enough to) read much about him. Seems like he likes to meddle, has made money off the misfortunes of others, but has given a fair bit back. Bad guy or good guy I'm not quite sure. I don't think he'd really given away his fortune to get rid of Bush, but it sounded good.

mjmacky
06-13-2011, 06:31 PM
If Glenn Beck liked me, I'd but a bullet in my abdomen, and let myself bleed out in a gutter.

And reduce the surplus population.

Too early to tell, as I've already implanted my seeds into your mother. We'll learn soon if she was fertile.

j2k4
06-13-2011, 09:08 PM
How do you feel about George Soros?

Not (been interested enough to) read much about him. Seems like he likes to meddle, has made money off the misfortunes of others, but has given a fair bit back. Bad guy or good guy I'm not quite sure. I don't think he'd really given away his fortune to get rid of Bush, but it sounded good.

"Not been interested enough to read much about him"?

I have a vague recollection of your bowels being in an uproar over the activities of a fellow named Murdoch.

mjmacky
06-14-2011, 01:36 AM
Not (been interested enough to) read much about him. Seems like he likes to meddle, has made money off the misfortunes of others, but has given a fair bit back. Bad guy or good guy I'm not quite sure. I don't think he'd really given away his fortune to get rid of Bush, but it sounded good.

"Not been interested enough to read much about him"?

I have a vague recollection of your bowels being in an uproar over the activities of a fellow named Murdoch.

You've got the quoting all backwards, it's a quickie mindfuck.

j2k4
06-14-2011, 02:58 AM
"Not been interested enough to read much about him"?

I have a vague recollection of your bowels being in an uproar over the activities of a fellow named Murdoch.

You've got the quoting all backwards, it's a quickie mindfuck.

Ah, thanks - let's see if I can fix that...

Snee
06-15-2011, 04:45 PM
Not (been interested enough to) read much about him. Seems like he likes to meddle, has made money off the misfortunes of others, but has given a fair bit back. Bad guy or good guy I'm not quite sure. I don't think he'd really given away his fortune to get rid of Bush, but it sounded good.

"Not been interested enough to read much about him"?

I have a vague recollection of your bowels being in an uproar over the activities of a fellow named Murdoch.

I can't actually recall. Was billy on the other side of the argument?

Sometimes I just argued to see if he'd explode.

j2k4
06-15-2011, 08:04 PM
"Not been interested enough to read much about him"?

I have a vague recollection of your bowels being in an uproar over the activities of a fellow named Murdoch.

I can't actually recall. Was billy on the other side of the argument?

Sometimes I just argued to see if he'd explode.

Can't recall any Soros mentions in BD's presence, but.

Me, too - how do we know he didn't, eventually?

It wouldn't have been very noisy; just a short-lived stain on the beach at Cairns.

j2k4
06-15-2011, 08:06 PM
Edging closer *






















*gratuitous post...this has to end sometime.

Cloud9
12-07-2016, 03:00 PM
I knew it was a long shot with Trump, but he was the only one I was actually enthused about voting for. He was the only one who would even dare mention the word TARIFF and the only one who wanted to stand up against China.

With him out of the way, I'm throwing all my support to Ron Paul. He's the only current candidate I can stomach. If he doesn't win the primay, and at this point it looks like a long shot, I may end up not even voting at all in 2012.

At this point, it looks almost certain that Obama will get in again for another 4 years. The economy is rebounding. The birther issue has been squashed.

I still wonder what he will do about the 14 trillion dollars of debt. Oh wait! I know! Why not raise taxes! That's what lies ahead. Massive tax increases.

Hmmmm... seems like Trump ended up winning. How about that?

Barbarossa
12-07-2016, 03:23 PM
Trump is like a clown; if he changes his mind and decides to run for President, he won't get elected. I really hope that Obama will get re-elected.

Damn right Oleg, there's more chance of you getting your end away that Trump becoming Pres... oh never mind :emo:

OlegL
12-07-2016, 04:10 PM
Trump is like a clown; if he changes his mind and decides to run for President, he won't get elected. I really hope that Obama will get re-elected.

I am against Obama now. I heard Obamacare sucks.

shaina
12-07-2016, 05:37 PM
Trump is like a clown; if he changes his mind and decides to run for President, he won't get elected. I really hope that Obama will get re-elected.
I am against Obama now. I heard Obamacare sucks.

I know there is a least 20 million plus Americans think different..

It doesn't suck, it needs some revamping, that's all..

Caballero
12-07-2016, 07:06 PM
Single-payer and mandatory enrollment for all should solve it.

Skiz
12-07-2016, 07:29 PM
I am against Obama now. I heard Obamacare sucks.

I know there is a least 20 million plus Americans think different..

It doesn't suck, it needs some revamping, that's all..

No. It sucks. It beyond sucks. Why do you think it needs revamping? Because it sucks.

It's incredibly expensive and almost no health care providers will accept it bc it doesn't pay the provider but a small fraction of what they're billing. So they naturally say, 'Nah, we're good. We'll just keep accepting all these other providers that pay us more.'

I have a friend on FB who just posted a couple of weeks ago that she pays $1200/m for Obamacare under the "Affordable Healthcare Act" and literally no doctors will take it.

EDIT: here's the post:

172936


Single-payer and mandatory enrollment for all should solve it.

Well there's that pesky thing called The Constitution so.... no.

Caballero
12-07-2016, 08:16 PM
If the state can make me get car insurance, then why should the state not be able to make me get health insurance? Explain the difference, please.

As for your friend, maybe she should try to understand how the system works. Make her google "charge master", and read the Time article "Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us" from 2013. Here's a clue: official hospital rates are inflated and insurance companies negotiate prices down to real-world levels (usually set within the Medicare system). To say that insurance companies only "pay the provider but a small fraction of what they're billing" is like saying I got a great deal because I only paid 50% for something whose price doubled the week before -- that discount is irrelevant. And make her understand that if she goes to an out-of-network doctor/hospital, of course the insurance company is not going to pay for anything. But that's got nothing to do with Obamacare; that's the way any health insurance company operates.

Medical costs in this country are high because nobody reigns in the drug companies. And insurance companies charge higher rates because the covered base is not as large as it could/should be. Increase the pool of insured with the young and healthy, and the monthly rate per person will go down. And get rid of all the paperwork the system currently requires, and you'll save even more.

So I say again, single-payer and mandatory enrollment for all should solve it. or at least be a very big step in the right direction.

Caballero
12-07-2016, 08:19 PM
To add to my car insurance example: the county I live in has a large number of uninsured drivers (let's not even talk about underinsured drivers), so the insurance rate I am paying is higher than it should be if everyone had coverage. Check your own policy for the "uninsured/underinsured" part of your premium and you see how much money you could save right away...

Skiz
12-07-2016, 08:41 PM
Simple. You choose to drive or not drive. If you choose to drive, you are required to maintain liability insurance while driving on public roads. As per The Constitution, The govt cannot require you pay for insurance. Don't want to pay for it? That's fine. Walk. Bike. Take the bus. Uber. Ride share. Whatever. Single payer health insurance would require everyone pay into the system. There is no opt out, otherwise the system doesn't work. That's why it was quickly dropped back in 2010-ish when The ACA was being pushed through.

Skiz
12-07-2016, 08:48 PM
I'm on the mobile so can't bother quoting properly.

She should try to understand how the system works? Out of network? It's Obamacare. The whole point of it was to give people in all areas of the country affordable options. She lives in suburban Houston with thousands of options and still can't get the care she needs simply because doctors don't accept it. The margins are just too small.

Caballero
12-07-2016, 11:04 PM
832.632.8437

Tell your friend to ask for Shelby. She'll help her evaluate her options.

If she really pays $1200/month, Shelby should be able to get her an off-exchange plan that's cheaper and that's accepted by the doctors.

You're welcome.

shaina
12-08-2016, 01:53 PM
If the state can make me get car insurance, then why should the state not be able to make me get health insurance? Explain the difference, please.As for your friend, maybe she should try to understand how the system works. Make her google "charge master", and read the Time article "Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us" from 2013. Here's a clue: official hospital rates are inflated and insurance companies negotiate prices down to real-world levels (usually set within the Medicare system). To say that insurance companies only "pay the provider but a small fraction of what they're billing" is like saying I got a great deal because I only paid 50% for something whose price doubled the week before -- that discount is irrelevant. And make her understand that if she goes to an out-of-network doctor/hospital, of course the insurance company is not going to pay for anything. But that's got nothing to do with Obamacare; that's the way any health insurance company operates.
Medical costs in this country are high because nobody reigns in the drug companies. And insurance companies charge higher rates because the covered base is not as large as it could/should be. Increase the pool of insured with the young and healthy, and the monthly rate per person will go down. And get rid of all the paperwork the system currently requires, and you'll save even more.
So I say again, single-payer and mandatory enrollment for all should solve it. or at least be a very big step in the right direction.

All i can say is you are right and wrong at the same time..
If you think about why health care kind of works here in Canada??
-Government controls and uses Gas Tax and allocates it to Health Care
-Government controls our Liquor Tax and that allocates to Health Care
-Government controls Lottery Tax (and our winnings are tax free but you guys wright off way more shit on your taxes like lottery losses and mortgages we can not), that is allocated to Health Care
and there is a lot more as well, and i can tell you from experience, there is flaws with our system as well, and without drug plans here you get robbed as well(if you take a lot), and as far as i was told, you can not be refused care in a Public hospital in the US, is that wrong??

Skiz...
First off Trump is full of shit!!
The only way Obamacare will work is if the majority of people are on it(the way it is designed), it then offsets nut bags that run to the hospital/doctor because they have a paper-cut instead of putting a band-aid on it, and others don't. And the insurance companies are not the underwriters of the policies and the Government or appointed committee controls the pricing..
The Funds have to come from somewhere Skiz, plus the Government has to control it...
I am thinking a Single Payer would look good for future generations:idunno:

Ask yourself this?? Have you herd of a Public (Shareholders) Insurance company losing money?? Yet they raise the premiums and say it offsets any future loses..
Even if Trumps idea to negotiate with these Insurance companies and not subsidize it somehow it can't work..
I can tell you again from seeing it with my own eyes !! I take my Mother-in law to the doctor in Florida, and all over the walls the Doctor has posted he has no insurance, and you sign a waiver that you can't sue him...
How many times do you hear a Doctor is sued for Malpractice in Canada?? Pretty much never!! In the US you sue for hot coffee in McDonald's :D
Do you think that has something to do with cost??

Rates doctors charge and companies that supply hospitals need to be controlled and that would be a start.

Again Obama Care does work but it needs some changes and modifications to fix it, starting from scratch and relying on Insurance companies that also have to report to Shareholders profits will never work.
Right now Trump won your election and he won on a lot of false promises(like all politicians), and last i herd they are going to take at least 3 years til they have a solution for this, and we will have to see if Trump is still the President :)

PS. Blaming Drug Companies excuse doesn't work in Canada, they get cost down with most of the popular drugs being made or known as "Generic Drugs", those are given first.

shaina
12-08-2016, 02:10 PM
Simple. You choose to drive or not drive. If you choose to drive, you are required to maintain liability insurance while driving on public roads. As per The Constitution, The govt cannot require you pay for insurance. Don't want to pay for it? That's fine. Walk. Bike. Take the bus. Uber. Ride share. Whatever. Single payer health insurance would require everyone pay into the system. There is no opt out, otherwise the system doesn't work. That's why it was quickly dropped back in 2010-ish when The ACA was being pushed through.

The reason why it didn't work, because the Seniors lobbied and didn't want to pay there share in increased taxes.

But in the end are they not hurting there children and grandchildren future healthcare??

shaina
12-08-2016, 02:14 PM
832.632.8437
Tell your friend to ask for Shelby. She'll help her evaluate her options.
If she really pays $1200/month, Shelby should be able to get her an off-exchange plan that's cheaper and that's accepted by the doctors.
You're welcome.

Is there more involved on this cost premium??

shaina
12-08-2016, 02:21 PM
I'm on the mobile so can't bother quoting properly.
She should try to understand how the system works? Out of network? It's Obamacare. The whole point of it was to give people in all areas of the country affordable options. She lives in suburban Houston with thousands of options and still can't get the care she needs simply because doctors don't accept it. The margins are just too small.

Doctors don't accept it, Why??

A doctor here gets $20-40(approx) per visit that lasts maybe 15 minutes, as far as i have read, Obamacare gets $50 for 15 minute visit
Where is the problem here??

Skiz
12-08-2016, 09:39 PM
I'm on the mobile so can't bother quoting properly.
She should try to understand how the system works? Out of network? It's Obamacare. The whole point of it was to give people in all areas of the country affordable options. She lives in suburban Houston with thousands of options and still can't get the care she needs simply because doctors don't accept it. The margins are just too small.

Doctors don't accept it, Why??

A doctor here gets $20-40(approx) per visit that lasts maybe 15 minutes, as far as i have read, Obamacare gets $50 for 15 minute visit
Where is the problem here??

They don't accept it bc they aren't reimbursed at a high enough rate by the exchanges plan to make it worth their time. It's just a matter of dollars and cents.

And the amount reimbursed cannot be simplified like that. ($50 for 15 minute visit). Different exchanges offer different pros and cons. Each paying out different amounts. And the basic office visit may not be (and likely isnt) the only factor. It's the overall margins that matter. A comes in for the flu, B comes in for a physical, C comes in for blood work, etc. All of these may pay the flat rate for an office consultation but if Obamacare isn't paying out much if anything on the lab work, etc etc etc then the margins just may not be there. Or, clearly aren't there if so many doctors offices are turning away patients.

Skiz
12-08-2016, 09:41 PM
832.632.8437
Tell your friend to ask for Shelby. She'll help her evaluate her options.
If she really pays $1200/month, Shelby should be able to get her an off-exchange plan that's cheaper and that's accepted by the doctors.
You're welcome.

Umm... what's the context here?

I'm definitely not calling a friend I haven't spoken to in a while and saying I was posting her personal story on the internets and to call that person for reasons unknown. :huh:

Caballero
12-08-2016, 11:22 PM
Context is that that is the number of an insurance broker in Houston that can help her find better/cheaper health insurance. $1200/month pays for a policy covering a family of three (Aetna or United healthcare, I forget) in 2016, with money left over, so if she's paying that much just for her own coverage, she's definitely paying too much. And that policy was off-exchange, so doctors would accept it. And then there are enough hospitals in Houston that offer their own HMO-style insurance policies. Hermann Memorial, for example.

Yes, choices will be even more limited in 2017 since some insurance companies have announced that they will leave the Texas market, but that's why you let the professionals deal with the details and let them research alternatives for you. If all your friend did is go on the website and sign up for the first plan she saw, then I am not surprised...

shaina
12-08-2016, 11:33 PM
They don't accept it bc they aren't reimbursed at a high enough rate by the exchanges plan to make it worth their time. It's just a matter of dollars and cents.
And the amount reimbursed cannot be simplified like that. ($50 for 15 minute visit). Different exchanges offer different pros and cons. Each paying out different amounts. And the basic office visit may not be (and likely isnt) the only factor. It's the overall margins that matter. A comes in for the flu, B comes in for a physical, C comes in for blood work, etc. All of these may pay the flat rate for an office consultation but if Obamacare isn't paying out much if anything on the lab work, etc etc etc then the margins just may not be there. Or, clearly aren't there if so many doctors offices are turning away patients.

I am not really sure on the total breakdown Skiz, you may be right, but the $50 is just for a standard visit, if you prescribe meds you get more etc. And i am just talking GP not specialist, they always get more..

And really i think it has to do with the Mal-practice insurance and other expenses to run there office causes problems, like i said here in Canada that is not the case..
You never really hear of lawsuits for Mal-practice here, and the Doctors stick together here. Again there are flaws here as well but for general care it is not that bad..

But i do know for anything to really work in the US, there will be financial hits for a few years that Americans will have to expect for any type of good system health care, and Trump saying he can fix anything without that will be really interesting to see...
I really hope he can do something that works for all Americans, it really will be interesting how he does it, but if Publicly owned Insurance companies are involved and not Government controlled, he will have to be a magician..

Single payer health insurance works, but it has to be built up..

PS. Skiz.. There is another problem here, when it comes to GP's here it works on a cattle system and then it is capped per doctor, meaning, you need patience my friend:D, not overcharge less people and be a lazy fuck!! Doctors here do have to put in hours, or they make shit!!
They also open clinics and feed off the other doctors (part time and get paid a salary, and take the rest from government)..
Now i am also assuming that Obama Care was set up to be competitive to the payouts of the Insurance companies or HMO or employee company coverage. But if the doctors want to be greedy fucks and not work as hard, well that is a different story Skiz:)

shaina
12-08-2016, 11:52 PM
Context is that that is the number of an insurance broker in Houston that can help her find better/cheaper health insurance. $1200/month pays for a policy covering a family of three (Aetna or United healthcare, I forget) in 2016, with money left over, so if she's paying that much just for her own coverage, she's definitely paying too much. And that policy was off-exchange, so doctors would accept it. And then there are enough hospitals in Houston that offer their own HMO-style insurance policies. Hermann Memorial, for example.
Yes, choices will be even more limited in 2017 since some insurance companies have announced that they will leave the Texas market, but that's why you let the professionals deal with the details and let them research alternatives for you. If all your friend did is go on the website and sign up for the first plan she saw, then I am not surprised...

What i am not getting about this conversation, Most people that have good steady jobs in the US are covered for all of this correct??
It would be the same in Canada only it is not for health care but for Medications..

And with HMO and Insurance companies, the big problem is if there is long term illnesses involved that is a killer in premiums..
Example... When i travel to the US i buy insurance (Not covered under the Canadian health care), i pay just over $100 for the year, and that covers everything except per-existing conditions. Now if you are 65 and on some meds, any coverage sky-rockets!! ($3000 and up)..

But with Single payer health insurance like you say it does even out but it does take time to build or the US government will have to find the funds, be it taxes all around, not just personal but Business. Again Trump and his bright ideas of cutting taxes for the rich and business that is impossible, as far as i am concerned:idunno:

It will be really interesting to see what happens in the future, just like seeing Trump take credit for businesses that he claims are staying in the US and have announced it long before they were not leaving completely, or making up figures (New Planes), to scare the public that are not even in existence yet..
That is the Republican way. But really the bloody guy is not in office yet so speculation means shit, until he is sworn in and takes office, then the fun will begin:D

MacGyverSG1
02-01-2018, 03:27 PM
Well, we can see that Trump and the Republicans are really f'ing things up. No surprise there. More debt and more spending. Eventually a Democrat will have to come in and fix shit (raise taxes, renew regulations, repair foreign relations, etc.). I'm not a fan of either party, but Republican politicians first priority is themselves (job, power, money), then corporations (fossil fuels, NRA, religion, insurance), then family & friends, and lastly American people. The rich will get richer, the middle-class and poor will get poorer, the environment will suffer, and the USA will have no credibility with the rest of the world.

A single payer system IS probably the best way to go for healthcare. If you take profit out of healthcare, it would be much more affordable. The same thing with education. The people in charge know that when something is needed, they can charge whatever they want, especially when it comes to life or death situations.

richasis
02-27-2018, 02:24 PM
American exceptionalism...ain't it great?

OlegL
02-03-2024, 12:53 AM
Trump is like a clown; if he changes his mind and decides to run for President, he won't get elected. I really hope that Obama will get re-elected.
I am embarrassed that I wrote that. Despite his many shortcomings, Trump did some positive things when he was President.

IdolEyes787
02-03-2024, 06:44 PM
Pray tell.

OlegL
02-03-2024, 11:09 PM
Trump renegotiated trade deals and brought some jobs back to the US. He didn't start any new wars, and he worked to unwind foreign entanglements. He deescalated tensions in Korea. He stood up to BLM and Antifa.

IdolEyes787
02-04-2024, 12:11 PM
Obama brought more than double the jobs back to the U.S. War is often more a result of the unavoidable events than a conscious decision. Like the Republican Party, at it's essential core, neither BLM or Antifa are a bad thing.

To be fair, I'm sure that Jefferson Davis also did some good things.

OlegL
02-05-2024, 12:50 AM
Are you sure Obama brought a considerable number of jobs back to the U.S.?.. BLM and Antifa are leftist ideologies and they are harmful ideologies, but Obama, as far as I know, didn't oppose them.Trump was in opposition to illegal immigration, but Obama, as far as I know, didn't care much about this issue... I don't know much about Jefferson Davis except that he was President of the Confederacy. I assume you grew up in Canada and were taught American history there.

IdolEyes787
02-05-2024, 03:48 PM
So apparently you're pro-fascist and think that black lives don't matter. I'll keep that in mind when planning my next dinner party.

OlegL
02-05-2024, 06:21 PM
I have no idea if you are joking or not, but blacks are not oppressed in the U.S; that's why the idea black lives sometimes don't matter is meaningless. The only reason for the BLM ideology's existence is to perpetuate a myth.

IdolEyes787
02-06-2024, 12:49 AM
Tell that to George Floyd. Oh wait, you can't.

OlegL
02-06-2024, 02:33 AM
The police definitely mistreated him, but he wouldn't have been in this predicament in the first place if he hadn't committed an actual crime. He was just one person; what happened to him doesn't prove anything. As I said before, I don't know if you are even being serious.

IdolEyes787
02-06-2024, 12:07 PM
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/list-police-related-deaths-usa-1.4438618

What do most of these have in common? Excessive force was used against an unarmed black man by a white policeman and the killer wasn't prosecuted. I'm sure that police walk around scared all the time so I don't see how "being scared" in one particular incident is any excuse. Btw is only a small smattering of unprovoked cop on black violence. It's so prevalent that mothers have to tell their children to be compliant as possible if ever encountering police. Didn't help the black guy who was merely reaching for his license when the cop took that to be a threatening action and shot him half a dozen times but we live in hope.

OlegL
02-06-2024, 07:21 PM
This website mentions only 14 cases. For example, it mentions Michael Brown's case. He committed a crime by stealing something, and he initiated violence toward a police officer. What about the remaining 13 cases? Are you sure none of these 13 remaining people were guilty of criminal behavior? What point are you trying to make? As I said, I have a suspicion you are simply joking.

OlegL
02-10-2024, 03:40 AM
IdolEyes, please keep the conversation alive. After all, I am an old-timer on this board. We started speaking to each other in 2009... I just don't know if you seriously believe some of the things that you said on the BLM topic.

j2k4
02-10-2024, 03:53 PM
Both of you should watch The Fall of Minneapolis.


​You will be relieved of all relevant ignorance.

IdolEyes787
02-10-2024, 05:35 PM
https://www.reddit.com/r/Minneapolis/comments/19e4pkc/another_the_fall_of_minneapolis_debunkingits/

Thanks but I don't want anything endorsed by White Supremists. Call it a quirk.

IdolEyes787
02-10-2024, 05:37 PM
IdolEyes, please keep the conversation alive. After all, I am an old-timer on this board. We started speaking to each other in 2009... I just don't know if you seriously believe some of the things that you said on the BLM topic. I've moved on. Raccoons are the new black.

shaina
02-10-2024, 11:52 PM
IdolEyes, please keep the conversation alive. After all, I am an old-timer on this board. We started speaking to each other in 2009... I just don't know if you seriously believe some of the things that you said on the BLM topic. I've moved on. Raccoons are the new black.

;)

192439

192440

192441

192442

IdolEyes787
02-11-2024, 10:48 PM
You shouldn't have posted that. I had to put you on my list.

OlegL
02-12-2024, 03:01 AM
Both of you should watch The Fall of Minneapolis.


​You will be relieved of all relevant ignorance.

I don't think I am ignorant as far as this topic is concerned. The police officers definitely mistreated Floyd, but it's also true he was a scumbag who was elevated to sainthood after his death.

j2k4
02-15-2024, 10:59 PM
Both of you should watch The Fall of Minneapolis.


​You will be relieved of all relevant ignorance.

The police officers definitely mistreated Floyd.

Watch the documentary and take note of the officers' training, as well as the fall-out from their having used the methods of restraint they were taught.

I promise, you will be enlightened, and definitely NOT bored.

IdolEyes787
02-16-2024, 04:02 PM
Watch the documentary and take note of the officers' training, as well as the fall-out from their having used the methods of restraint they were taught.

I promise, you will be enlightened, and definitely NOT bored. So you're saying that there are explosions and boobs? Probably should have lead with that.

j2k4
02-18-2024, 01:29 PM
Watch the documentary and take note of the officers' training, as well as the fall-out from their having used the methods of restraint they were taught.

I promise, you will be enlightened, and definitely NOT bored. So you're saying that there are explosions and boobs? Probably should have lead with that.


Much as I love explosions, boobs, explosions of boobs and all similar variants, I meant that the intellectually curious would "not be bored". ;)