TrumpCare

[ComradeMilton]

It doesn't matter who proclaims the point at which it's a problem. Last I checked our debt was contributing nicely to our income. Single-payer would actually be saving a ton of cash (without preventative care simple problems become life-threatening and end up in the ER. if the patient can't pay, the government does at the maximum possible rate). Turning our entire population into one better-run healthcare system will massively increase the risk pool leading to lower costs, preventative care being something the poor can afford and letting current governmental healthcare programs start showing how easy it is to beat the'private insurers.

Our debt is seriously not a big deal. The UK only finished paying off debts from the Crimean War a few years ago and the non-US owners of American debt recognize that making a big thing out of it is a quick trip to a crippling depression worldwide. We're fine and single-paying will reduce at least one source of significant government expenditure.

[Rozalia]

Does a real bad job at quoting me but has brought up months old posts where I say I'll not respond until he smartens up, so now that I have he is smart totally. No lad. I simply haven't dealt with you in a while and feel no issue dealing with your insanity. 

Though it does have to be said even a broken clock can be correct. Israel who recieves much in American funds has Universal healthcare. Big bad Russia whose economy is nothing compared to America tries to maintain such a system. Even Syria provides such things though if it still does in it's current bombed out shell I don't know. For all these places to be able to do healthcare like that, Americans claiming it wouldn't work in their country is pretty silly.
The hip replacement and whatever else argument is also dishonest in that it tries to imply that if you're in danger then you go to the "death panel" and they choose if you live or die by delaying your operation or putting you the front. The truth is quite simply that in regards to serious operations the healthcare system tries to get done as soon as possible. Not vital care like those examples always brought up are delayed because when you're running a government system like that you need to prioritise the important stuff over the non important.

[Doktor Avalanche]

 

1 hour ago, ComradeMilton said:

Nope.Government run healthcare is already cheaper in administrative costs than private insurers and is only currently prevented from beating them further by not being permitted to negotiate costs as the private insurers can.

To prove the low cost per person is more than subjective, as some would cost barely anything versus others who would be ridiculously high, and using other government departments to do most of the work is why the supposed administrative costs would be low. It does not add up. Its a nice lie.

2 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

Not at all.

Evidence then.

2 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

They definitely haven't done this.

Heh, a steady increase in all European nations since 2006 says otherwise. A major increase since 2014.

2 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

Comparable to wait times for specialists in the United States.

Nope. The average wait time for both hip replacements and cataract surgery is 20.5 days.

2 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

Canada has a tenth of our population, it's quite natural they wouldn't be buying as much of the equipment in the same numbers.

Hence the wait time for analysis and treatment.

2 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

Not only is it not most, in fact we usually fund the research and related things via the NIH and then the producers claim high costs for research they need to recoup via the cost of the medicines developed.

Usually? Huh. 75% of most research is privately funded. However, I believe the pharmaceutical industry needs more than a huge overhaul on how it functions and costs. How? No clue.

2 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

No, they aren't.

How are they not? Please, enlighten us with your bias.

2 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

You're welcome to be as incorrect as you like.

After you, sir.

[ComradeMilton]

1 hour ago, Doc Martini said:

After you, sir.

I think you've covered why there'd no use in even bothering to post data. So, welcome, enjoy your fiction.

[Caecus]

12 hours ago, Rozalia said:

Unrivalled? The man is a promoter of himself, getting attention is something he knows all too well on how to do. It is nothing complicated to realise that if a simple tweet can make your opponents focus on them instead of real issues then... keep doing it. As for "being a child", everyone knew that... details shall we say are not Trump's strong suit. He knows all of zero about healthcare and so he leaves it to the Republicans, and is why he has been caught several times (even during a Republican debate) praising universal healthcare.

You just never learn. It does not matter as long as the Democrats run another Corrupt Clintonite. People may dislike Trump but they hate corrupt politicians more, especially on the Democratic side who profess to be holier than thou Republican opposition. It is why a Progressive type, especially a strong and hard to attack one like Tulsi is so threatening to Trump. A corrupt Clintonite he can point out is bought and paid for, has failed their voters on several issues (watch how Democrats for Universal Healthcare suddenly decide "it's not the time" whenever any real shot at it comes up), are pro war in the middle east, and so on stands no chance especially as the Progressive wing of the Democratic party is angry enough already and will not accept getting screwed again. Do so and they'll take their support and Democratic support across the country will collapse. 

Why do all you people do this? It fails every damn time you know. I certainly have extreme viewpoints but that does not mean I do not analyse things in a measured and fair way. Keep making a fool out of yourself if you wish, awfully boring by this point to me but knock yourself out I guess. 

Lol. I see the cracks in your faith, son. You have strayed away from the one true Trump. 

I also find that funny too. 3 months ago, all you Trump supporters were like "Trump is the greatest in the world! He can do no wrong." Now, your best excuse is "At least he's better than Clinton." Which means, if Clinton was shit, Trump is just a smaller shit by your excuses. If I called Trump a diminutive turd 3 months ago, you guys would have lost your minds. Now, you just accept it to be fact. You guys are really scraping the bottom of the approval barrel here. In 3 months, when all you Trump supporters inevitably reject him like a transplanted liver and pretend you never wanted to vote for Trump, just remember we had this conversation. 

Also, if "details are not Trump's strong suit," why the bloody hell did you think he was going to be the best president? If "details are not his strong suit," that means he could potentially sod pretty much his entire base in the arse by passing a healthcare bill that benefits all the rich corrupt Democrats. Again, not that you could care, Mr. I-live-in-Britain-and-have-universal-healthcare-if-I-break-an-arm. 

I'm also thinking that Trump didn't collude with Russia on swaying the election. It's all a witch hunt. Lindsay Graham was right when he said the president is not enough detailed-orientated (i.e. too !@#$ing stupid) to collude with any government.  

[Doktor Avalanche]

2 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

I think you've covered why there'd no use in even bothering to post data. So, welcome, enjoy your fiction.

Yay. I get a cookie now. You get one too.

[Doktor Avalanche]

10 hours ago, Rozalia said:

For all these places to be able to do healthcare like that, Americans claiming it wouldn't work in their country is pretty silly.
The hip replacement and whatever else argument is also dishonest in that it tries to imply that if you're in danger then you go to the "death panel" and they choose if you live or die by delaying your operation or putting you the front. 

"Baby Charlie" who has according to the press a 10% chance to live, yet a judge is trying to pull the plug?

I would say that is a "death panel" by the definition. Extreme case, but the parents have no say whether their child lives or dies. Pretty shitty situation.

[Caecus]

On 7/10/2017 at 4:36 PM, WISD0MTREE said:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/10/politics/donald-trump-russia/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/09/politics/trump-russia-meeting-campaign/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/10/politics/trump-knowledge-meeting-natalia-veselnitskaya/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/30/politics/russians-trump-campaign-information/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/10/politics/trump-politics-week-washington/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/15/politics/russia-spy-recruitment-tactics-fbi-carter-page/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/12/politics/trump-carter-page-russia-devin-nunes/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/10/us/five-things-july-10-trnd/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/06/26/three-cnn-employees-resign-over-retracted-story-on-russia-ties/?utm_term=.da95463c2a26

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/kremlin-denies-knowing-of-donald-trump-jr-meeting-with-russian-lawyer-during-2016-campaign/2017/07/10/c2bfee34-6566-11e7-a1d7-9a32c91c6f40_story.html?utm_term=.7d906e787935

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-moves-to-return-russian-compounds-in-maryland-and-new-york/2017/05/31/3c4778d2-4616-11e7-98cd-af64b4fe2dfc_story.html?utm_term=.400cbffc9df9

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/10/5-big-questions-after-the-bombshell-about-donald-trump-jr-and-the-russian-lawyer/?utm_term=.52ebb30143a4

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-ambassador-told-moscow-that-kushner-wanted-secret-communications-channel-with-kremlin/2017/05/26/520a14b4-422d-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?utm_term=.f2c9d379d834

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/presidents-son-met-with-russian-lawyer-during-presidential-campaign-after-being-promised-information-helpful-to-fathers-effort/2017/07/09/90c0e3e8-64e9-11e7-8eb5-cbccc2e7bfbf_story.html?utm_term=.41d89fac3966

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/07/10/here-are-the-times-that-trump-allies-have-denied-or-obscured-links-to-russian-agents/?utm_term=.71fa42331a66

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/07/07/trump-may-claim-he-won-the-u-s-russia-meeting-but-putin-probably-benefits-more/?utm_term=.e3712e2e8905

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/trump-russia/?utm_term=.9e69216ad894

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-russia-meeting_us_59637b59e4b0d5b458ebdd34

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-jr-russian-lawyer_us_59636504e4b02e9bdb0deb58

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-jr-met-with-russian-lawyer-after-being-promised-damaging-intel-on-hillary-clinton-report_us_59629482e4b0615b9e926ea0

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nikki-haley-contradicts-trump-russian-election-meddling_us_596117b8e4b02e9bdb0d022b

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-jr-hires-new-york-lawyer-for-russia-probes-report_us_5963dba1e4b03f144e2cf79b

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-cyber-security-pact-russia_us_5962da4ae4b02e9bdb0d976e

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sarah-huckabee-sanders-donald-trump-jr_us_5963d9d6e4b03f144e2cf47b

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-putin-g20_us_59622991e4b0d5b458eb03ad

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/10/us/politics/rob-goldstone-russia-trump.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/politics/time-to-move-forward-trump-says-after-putin-denies-election-hacking.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/politics/trump-russia-kushner-manafort.html

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/07/us/politics/trump-russia-flynn-kushner.html

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000004554934/donald-trumps-russian-connections.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/donald-trump-jrs-two-different-explanations-for-russian-meeting.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/feinstein-believes-trump-russia-probe-includes-cover-up-question/

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-jr-meeting-takes-russia-scandal-alarming-direction

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/maddow-to-news-orgs-heads-up-for-hoaxes-985491523709

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/team-trumps-pre-election-russian-contacts-draw-fresh-scrutiny

http://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/watch/warner-expect-much-more-to-come-in-russia-probe-991597635927

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-news/watch/report-trump-jr-met-with-russian-lawyer-during-campaign-989418563676

I have to notice that the last story is actually pretty huge. HUUUUGGEEEE. It pretty much incriminates that the Trump campaign tried (unsure if it is successful) to coordinate a campaign against their political opponent. Don't take my word for it though, hear it from the great Trump Jr. himself. Assuming you actually read his emails. 

What a !@#$ing idiot. 

[WISD0MTREE]

7 hours ago, Caecus said:

I have to notice that the last story is actually pretty huge. HUUUUGGEEEE. It pretty much incriminates that the Trump campaign tried (unsure if it is successful) to coordinate a campaign against their political opponent. Don't take my word for it though, hear it from the great Trump Jr. himself. Assuming you actually read his emails. 

What a !@#$ing idiot. 

But our Lord and Savior of Real News, CNN, said it isn't illegal. 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/opinions/trump-jr-russia-meeting-not-illegal-callan/index.html

"Even if Trump campaign officials had happily accepted damaging information about Hillary Clinton from the Russians -- and there is no evidence that they did -- so far there has been nothing to prove that they engaged in illegal activity through their interest in obtaining the material." -CNN

[Caecus]

43 minutes ago, WISD0MTREE said:

But our Lord and Savior of Real News, CNN, said it isn't illegal. 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/opinions/trump-jr-russia-meeting-not-illegal-callan/index.html

"Even if Trump campaign officials had happily accepted damaging information about Hillary Clinton from the Russians -- and there is no evidence that they did -- so far there has been nothing to prove that they engaged in illegal activity through their interest in obtaining the material." -CNN

I seem to recall our Lord and Savior of Real News CNN said Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server wasn't illegal either, but that doesn't stop people from declaring her a traitor and should be "locked up." /winkyface /doublestandards

But let's just take this back into context. The Trump campaign has spent the last 6 months saying that they had nothing to do with Russia. They said they never even talked to people from Russia. 6 months later and Mr. Donny Mcfuksalot here throws up emails saying he was offered compromising information on his political opponent from the Russian government itself and for some reason *cough* coverup *cough* didn't bother to put those meetings in his disclosures.  And while yes, it's true we still don't know if Trump Jr. did get and use the compromising information (from which the illegality would be derived from), it's still A STUPID ASS MOVE. At least Clinton was smart enough to delete those emails as fast as she could so that there would be no legal case. Now Mueller is all up in that shit.

Dumbshits don't know how to be corrupt. For god's sake, if you are going to be corrupt and treasonous, at least be as good as the Clintonites. The only thing worse than corruption is being corrupt and sucking nuts at it. At least when I support a party candidate, it's because they are masterminding the complete takeover of the world in a meticulous and methodical way and not the false champion trying really hard not to be obviously corrupt. 

[WISD0MTREE]

7 minutes ago, Caecus said:

And while yes, it's true we still don't know if Trump Jr. did get and use the compromising information (from which the illegality would be derived from),

Dumbshits don't know how to be corrupt. For god's sake, if you are going to be corrupt and treasonous, at least be as good as the Clintonites. 

Not illegal according to the article I posted. 

"It might be morally and politically objectionable to gather dirt about your campaign opponent from an enemy of the United States, but the mere acceptance and use of the material would not be illegal.

In fact, if you could stretch the conspiracy statute to apply to your right to political free speech under the First Amendment, it would likely also provide a shield from prosecution. It really wouldn't matter that you got your info from the Russians.

The idea that this is some kind of campaign finance law violation doesn't fly either. The statute requires campaign solicitation of cash or a 'thing of value' from a foreign national. Information about Hillary Clinton is not what the law had in mind. The exchange of information is a core First Amendment/free speech concept, and Americans are free to accept ideas and information from US citizens and foreign nationals alike, even if the information is damaging to a political opponent.

If you charged Trump campaign officials with this as a crime, you would have to charge Clinton campaign officials if they accepted information or volunteer services from, say, undocumented aliens, as they are clearly foreign nationals. And don't even say the word treason. Treason, which can be punishable by death, is a whole different animal reserved for people who do things like steal atomic secrets and betray their country."

---

I laughed way harder than I should've for the second part of that sentence. 

[Caecus]

2 minutes ago, WISD0MTREE said:

Not illegal according to the article I posted. 

"It might be morally and politically objectionable to gather dirt about your campaign opponent from an enemy of the United States, but the mere acceptance and use of the material would not be illegal.

In fact, if you could stretch the conspiracy statute to apply to your right to political free speech under the First Amendment, it would likely also provide a shield from prosecution. It really wouldn't matter that you got your info from the Russians.

The idea that this is some kind of campaign finance law violation doesn't fly either. The statute requires campaign solicitation of cash or a 'thing of value' from a foreign national. Information about Hillary Clinton is not what the law had in mind. The exchange of information is a core First Amendment/free speech concept, and Americans are free to accept ideas and information from US citizens and foreign nationals alike, even if the information is damaging to a political opponent.

If you charged Trump campaign officials with this as a crime, you would have to charge Clinton campaign officials if they accepted information or volunteer services from, say, undocumented aliens, as they are clearly foreign nationals. And don't even say the word treason. Treason, which can be punishable by death, is a whole different animal reserved for people who do things like steal atomic secrets and betray their country."

 

---

I laughed way harder than I should've for the second part of that sentence. 

Lol, I'm glad you enjoyed the second part of the sentence. 

That being said, I'm surprised you are so knowledgeable about this topic considering you didn't know anything about the Clinton email scandal. Still think you should lock her up? I'm just wondering if you genuinely do that much research into who you support or you are a political ideologue who is untethered by principle. 

[WISD0MTREE]

1 minute ago, Caecus said:

That being said, I'm surprised you are so knowledgeable about this topic considering you didn't know anything about the Clinton email scandal.

Still think you should lock her up?

I'm just wondering if you genuinely do that much research into who you support or you are a political ideologue who is untethered by principle. 

Nah, I was just quoting from CNN in the parts with the quotation marks. 

Tbh, I don't recall ever calling for her to lock her up seriously without a trial. (I could've been in the zone and said it, but I don't remember.) I do remember saying there should be an investigation into the Clinton Foundation for the Russian Uranium scandal, AIPAC, and possibly deeper if anything interesting is found. 

The only reason I cared so much about the last election was because I was worried H Clinton would try to push B Clinton's weapon bans or worse. The Australia mandatory buyback idea, if implemented the same way, would ban all but two of my guns. (Side note: I found it funny when people attacked the NRA when they called the "mandatory buyback" a "gun confiscation" program. Apparently forcing someone to turn in an item is not confiscation.)

[Caecus]

3 minutes ago, WISD0MTREE said:

Nah, I was just quoting from CNN in the parts with the quotation marks. 

Tbh, I don't recall ever calling for her to lock her up seriously without a trial. (I could've been in the zone and said it, but I don't remember.) I do remember saying there should be an investigation into the Clinton Foundation for the Russian Uranium scandal, AIPAC, and possibly deeper if anything interesting is found. 

The only reason I cared so much about the last election was because I was worried H Clinton would try to push B Clinton's weapon bans or worse. The Australia mandatory buyback idea, if implemented the same way, would ban all but two of my guns. (Side note: I found it funny when people attacked the NRA when they called the "mandatory buyback" a "gun confiscation" program. Apparently forcing someone to turn in an item is not confiscation.)

Ah, see, our priorities are different. While I am the humble owner of a modest AR-15 and several handguns, I nonetheless voted for Clinton because I knew that a weapons ban (despite all the liberal diehards) is still ridiculously unfeasible at the federal level. I overall have a mild disinterest in domestic policy and take all presidents with a grain of salt when they present their domestic agenda. Where I am concerned is foreign policy. I voted for Clinton because I trusted her to maintain the power and prestige of the United States in the world. More and more everyday I feel vindicated by my choice when I see the sheer level of stupidity and incompetency of this administration. 

The only bright side is that Trump has delegated some major military options to senior command, instead of mulling over every decision like the Obama administration. But I would argue that is because Trump was offered that option and was simply too damn stupid to do anything else otherwise, not that he had any strategic and leadership foresight in the matter. 

From my understanding, the Russian Uranium deal had to be signed off by multiple other departments of which Clinton had no direct control over. Sure, you could say she had some influence via backroom deals to get the deal through (of which there is no evidence of or might have been in the deleted emails), but I would argue that still vindicates what I have said. If Hillary had influenced other departments, she was smart enough to delete all the evidence. Unlike this dumb schmuck who just tweeted it. 

Admit it all, corruption and backroom built Washington and will maintain it for generations to come. Unless you implement some serious changes (like, "mandatory buyback" levels of change), million dollar donors are always going to have more influence than the average schmuck here. If that is the case, then for god's sake, vote someone in who actually knows what the !@#$ they are doing. 

[Rozalia]

On 12/07/2017 at 4:05 AM, Caecus said:

Lol. I see the cracks in your faith, son. You have strayed away from the one true Trump. 

I also find that funny too. 3 months ago, all you Trump supporters were like "Trump is the greatest in the world! He can do no wrong." Now, your best excuse is "At least he's better than Clinton." Which means, if Clinton was shit, Trump is just a smaller shit by your excuses. If I called Trump a diminutive turd 3 months ago, you guys would have lost your minds. Now, you just accept it to be fact. You guys are really scraping the bottom of the approval barrel here. In 3 months, when all you Trump supporters inevitably reject him like a transplanted liver and pretend you never wanted to vote for Trump, just remember we had this conversation. 

Also, if "details are not Trump's strong suit," why the bloody hell did you think he was going to be the best president? If "details are not his strong suit," that means he could potentially sod pretty much his entire base in the arse by passing a healthcare bill that benefits all the rich corrupt Democrats. Again, not that you could care, Mr. I-live-in-Britain-and-have-universal-healthcare-if-I-break-an-arm. 

I'm also thinking that Trump didn't collude with Russia on swaying the election. It's all a witch hunt. Lindsay Graham was right when he said the president is not enough detailed-orientated (i.e. too !@#$ing stupid) to collude with any government.  

The fact you try to play this sort of game with me of all people shows just how silly and jumped up you are. You are nowhere near what you think you are.

You supported Clinton and lost. Get over it. For all your pseudo intellectual look at things you knew all of zero on the reality of things. So you throw all these remarks and insults out to cover for that fact, that you are everything you attack others with. 
I'm always measured and rational, always. I happily fight both sides on things and wreck both, all too easy for some one as great as the Roz. The Roz is the best after all. 

Out of him and Clinton? Yeah he'd be the better president. Yes, I'm in Britain and support universal healthcare... and? I don't hide such things so your tone is odd. I've argued with many Trump and other guys on the matter unlike the folk who decide to hide in their echo chambers talking about how stupid those outside it are. 

When you guys give up on the Commie conspiracy angle then you might get smart. Until then you're all just being very silly indeed.

[Caecus]

7 hours ago, Rozalia said:

The fact you try to play this sort of game with me of all people shows just how silly and jumped up you are. You are nowhere near what you think you are.

You supported Clinton and lost. Get over it. For all your pseudo intellectual look at things you knew all of zero on the reality of things. So you throw all these remarks and insults out to cover for that fact, that you are everything you attack others with. 
I'm always measured and rational, always. I happily fight both sides on things and wreck both, all too easy for some one as great as the Roz. The Roz is the best after all. 

Out of him and Clinton? Yeah he'd be the better president. Yes, I'm in Britain and support universal healthcare... and? I don't hide such things so your tone is odd. I've argued with many Trump and other guys on the matter unlike the folk who decide to hide in their echo chambers talking about how stupid those outside it are. 

When you guys give up on the Commie conspiracy angle then you might get smart. Until then you're all just being very silly indeed.

Am I playing games? I seem to distinctly recall your support for Trump went beyond measured and rational reasoning, to the point where you believed he could accomplish impossible tasks despite all indications in reality telling you otherwise. Would you like me to find your posts? I can think of at least 3 times off the top of my head where your support for Trump approached cult-like worship where you denied basic facts of reality in favor of a blind, faith-like trust in a man you now call a lesser of two turds. 

Your support of Trump has waned over the past few months. I am simply calling you out on your inconsistency and hypocrisy and making the prediction that your stance will change again when this "Commie conspiracy" inevitably screws Trump over. 

[matt2004]

On 11/07/2017 at 11:59 AM, Doc Martini said:

What is being proposed by the GOP is crap.

The Affordable Healthcare Act is crap too.

Bernie Sanders' plan for Single Payer Healthcare is probably the crappiest idea of all, which is what Obamacare was built to fail and bring us to under Hillary anyways. Glad she lost.

 

Single payer healthcare works (well, unless you put Jeremy Hunt & the Tories in charge of it). Before the Tories took control the NHS was one of the most efficient health services in the world - completely provided and funded by the state.

 

Obamacare used to be referred to as Romneycare by some - it was basically written up by the insurance companies and lobbied through as an alternative to real changes.

On 11/07/2017 at 9:33 PM, Doc Martini said:

"Single-Payer" Healthcare is a fanciful term for "Government-Ran-and- Government-Controlled" Healthcare. The government makes the rules, set its limits and decides who gets what for their care. End of Story. End of your Doctor, too. 

And you are definitely wrong on the cost being less than what we pay for now if we were to implement it into the United States and to maintain with the same consistency we have right now. With implementing in new technologies and new drugs, the costs are increasing worldwide and Europe itself is having difficulties maintaining their own systems right now. Every EU nation has increased their costs, some doubling, by means of increased taxation and even increasing sales taxes to cover costs.

The United States, unlike the individual nations in Europe, has almost 400,000,000 citizens. The costs to maintain this is not cheaper than we have now. To assume it will be is blind and asinine.

The troubles involved with Single-Payer is to look at what has been happening now in the UK and Canada, where the wait times for a hip replacement in Canada and the UK are on average 9 months to 2 years. Cataract surgery is about as long. Both Canada and the UK both have had to deal with misallocated funds due to ideologues attempting to make decisions which in the end either made patients wait up to years for simple treatments. Some treatments are slower to implement in these countries too, due to the lack of equipment for years however the technology may be available, the equipment costs limit the availability. And example: Most individual hospitals in the US have more MRI and PET scanners than entire Canadian provinces and English Counties. Most advancements in medical treatment have come from the United States since WWII. This is a result of the United States not maintaining government oversight in our healthcare.

Medicare and Medicaid are already Single Payer Healthcare and it has issues, along with high costs on the system. A good example is our current Veterans Healthcare system and the nightmare that is. When a party other than a patient or a provider starts making healthcare decisions, it’s easy to lose sight of whose interests should be paramount in a healthcare transaction. Governments and private insurers often have conflicting agendas regarding treatment, but a sick person never does. He or she just has one goal: recuperation.

So, I stick to what I said and that is Single-Payer Healthcare is utter crap.

The government already makes the rules on healthcare. Sorry but the government already regulates.

 

In terms of cost - the UK central government spends (and even under Labour spent less) than the US governement does per head (that is the figure even with people ahving insurance policies), you reference Europe having problems - that is the fault of the United States failing to regulate your own banks. Unlike the US - in the EU our governments stepped in immidiately to ensure nobody lost large amounts of money. In the UK this led to the Tories blaming Labour instead of the banks, getting into bed with the Lib-dems and imposing unnecicary cuts instead of borrowing to invest.

 

Wait times in the UK are high for three reasons:

1) The Conservative Party (Evil Tories) appointed Jeremy Hunt as health secretary. Someone dragged in from the street could do a better job.

2) The NHS is chronically under-funded (at least in England). This is due to the failing Tory policy of Austerity. In contrast the Scottish NHS is under SNP durisdiction and does not have this issue.

3) We have a social-care issue due to years of no investment causing "bed-blockers" in hospitals when they should be in local authority care. The Tories made this worse - we need new spaces in retirement homes that are funded by local authories - central government cuts have made this worse.

 

Do not relate Medicare and Medicade to the NHS. The NHS is a complete solution of state provision. The NHS itself is making the decisions alongside the regulators IE N.I.C.E. and PHE (which yes you also have in the US.) And yes there are contredicting ideas over treatment. In the UK your healthcare is never determined by what is in your bank account.

[WISD0MTREE]

17 hours ago, Caecus said:

While I am the humble owner of a modest AR-15 and several handguns, I nonetheless voted for Clinton because I knew that a weapons ban (despite all the liberal diehards) is still ridiculously unfeasible at the federal level. 

The only bright side is that Trump has delegated some major military options to senior command, instead of mulling over every decision like the Obama administration. But I would argue that is because Trump was offered that option and was simply too damn stupid to do anything else otherwise, not that he had any strategic and leadership foresight in the matter. 

From my understanding, the Russian Uranium deal had to be signed off by multiple other departments of which Clinton had no direct control over. Sure, you could say she had some influence via backroom deals to get the deal through (of which there is no evidence of or might have been in the deleted emails), but I would argue that still vindicates what I have said. If Hillary had influenced other departments, she was smart enough to delete all the evidence. Unlike this dumb schmuck who just tweeted it. 

Admit it all, corruption and backroom built Washington and will maintain it for generations to come. 

Well, let’s see. There was the National Firearms Act of 1934, then the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the creation of the ATF in 1972, the Law Enforcement Act Protection Act of 1986, the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1990, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994, the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994, (which did nothing to stop crime, by the way, and expired), and the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005--all federal laws designed to restrict the ownership of specific firearm categories, restrict ownership in general, on the federal level. 

At least he accepts he knows nothing. 

It did, but the NYT had an article that said there were huge donations to the Clinton Foundation at the time. If that's true (which I kind of question), then there should be some serious questions being asked. 

You think things can't change? 

[Doktor Avalanche]

1 hour ago, Matt2004 said:

~~UK Healthcare praises~~

All of your blame on the Tories is the result of having a centralized system which has pitfalls built into it.

I simply do not like Single-Payer Healthcare. I see troubles which can be avoided if the US swings that direction.

Call me an idiot if you disagree with me. I will call you an idiot if you love a centralized monopoly for your Healthcare provider.

 

[Rozalia]

7 hours ago, Caecus said:

Am I playing games? I seem to distinctly recall your support for Trump went beyond measured and rational reasoning, to the point where you believed he could accomplish impossible tasks despite all indications in reality telling you otherwise. Would you like me to find your posts? I can think of at least 3 times off the top of my head where your support for Trump approached cult-like worship where you denied basic facts of reality in favor of a blind, faith-like trust in a man you now call a lesser of two turds. 

Your support of Trump has waned over the past few months. I am simply calling you out on your inconsistency and hypocrisy and making the prediction that your stance will change again when this "Commie conspiracy" inevitably screws Trump over. 

State them. Why waste my time with words while not noting these 3 times you can recall?

My support for Trump has always been the same. Some nice stances here and there held back by him being shaky on loyalty to them and the fact his party is the Republican party and who'll be crafting much of his policy. However even such a thing is better than Clinton or any other hardcore person like that. As for the Commie conspiracy changing my mind... I don't even have to consider that. It is Alex Jones level stuff and embarrassing to even have to shame those spreading it. Like someone badmouthing the mistakes of a heavily disabled kid. The people spreading talk of that conspiracy are so loony in their rage at Trump that it is sad more than anything. Russia has not taken over America, calm down. The Republican party are hard right folk, not Commie agents. 

[Caecus]

1 hour ago, WISD0MTREE said:

Well, let’s see. There was the National Firearms Act of 1934, then the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the creation of the ATF in 1972, the Law Enforcement Act Protection Act of 1986, the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1990, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994, the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994, (which did nothing to stop crime, by the way, and expired), and the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005--all federal laws designed to restrict the ownership of specific firearm categories, restrict ownership in general, on the federal level. 

At least he accepts he knows nothing. 

It did, but the NYT had an article that said there were huge donations to the Clinton Foundation at the time. If that's true (which I kind of question), then there should be some serious questions being asked. 

You think things can't change? 

And has any of these laws affected you personally? Have these acts been successful at their goal despite being lobbied by the single-most ferocious gun rights organization (and arguably the most powerful lobbying force) in modern American history? Also, some of the laws you have listed do not do what you claim they do. For example, the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1990 is exactly what it says it does, there is no amendment that includes restriction of gun ownership. The Arms Act of 2005 is a pro-gun legislation preventing people from suing manufacturers for damages. Also, you are missing from this list the 2013 AWB, which did not pass, but was perhaps the only piece of legislation that you could potentially point to in order to justify your current position. Even at the height of the Obama administration in 2013 (post-Binladen's death and the Sandy Hook), the NRA proved to be such a powerful organization that the bill failed to pass. 

So, in conclusion, the death of elementary school children and a popular liberal president couldn't get an AWB passed, what in god's name made you think that Clinton (of whom even some liberals find unpalatable) could pass any gun-control legislation? I still refer back to my previous argument, that I voted for Clinton because I knew my guns are safe and she's not a !@#$ing idiot. 

Really? You think he "accepts" that he knows nothing? Have you heard him on healthcare? The "I know everything, everyone's surprised by how complicated healthcare is" guy? Here's what I think happened. I think that a group of people who have collectively served this country longer than it has been in existence were forced to wait in line to suck the little cheeto of a man who got to where he is today by cooperating with an enemy state so that real patriots can protect this country. 

THE FAILING NYTs?! Good god, I thought that the NYTs was on Clinton's side. Those traitors. I am aware of what caused the scandals, but if it was for the donations to the foundation, how did Clinton get multiple other departments (again, of which she has no direct control over) to sign off on the deal? Sure, it might have been in the email correspondence that she deleted, but there is no proof. Unlike the dimtwit Donny Jr. who just sold himself down the !@#$ing river. Again, git gud if you want to be corrupt and in Washington. It's embarrassing to see people not have their shit together. 

I think things can change. I think that if you do away with the current fundraising system at the federal level (where representatives call a list of super rich people who shit more donation money than the average joe makes in a year), it could help. Problem is, who is going to do that? Trump? The same guy railing against the Wall Street guys, but puts on a bunch of billionaires into high positions of government? Also, which one of these corrupt schmucks is going to propose something that is so against their own interests? Much less vote for it. Yeah, I think things can change, but not now and not by this dumbufk president. 

[Caecus]

43 minutes ago, Rozalia said:

State them. Why waste my time with words while not noting these 3 times you can recall?

My support for Trump has always been the same. Some nice stances here and there held back by him being shaky on loyalty to them and the fact his party is the Republican party and who'll be crafting much of his policy. However even such a thing is better than Clinton or any other hardcore person like that. As for the Commie conspiracy changing my mind... I don't even have to consider that. It is Alex Jones level stuff and embarrassing to even have to shame those spreading it. Like someone badmouthing the mistakes of a heavily disabled kid. The people spreading talk of that conspiracy are so loony in their rage at Trump that it is sad more than anything. Russia has not taken over America, calm down. The Republican party are hard right folk, not Commie agents. 

Seeing as how I have so much content, I hope you don't mind if I don't include the full quote and context behind each of your quotes. By the way, this is only within the past 6 months and only after briefly looking around, there is A LOT more, both from since Trump was elected and back in 2016. 

On 1/27/2017 at 1:15 PM, Rozalia said:

They will pay, if not one way then it will be another. Those who doubt Trump on this better be mindful of how wrong they have been in the past on everything. Remember "He will never build the wall" when you cry "Mexico will never pay".

On 1/27/2017 at 6:03 PM, Rozalia said:

You doubt Strongman Trump? The man who is doing numerous "illegal acts" with the latest being his decree to build pipelines with just US steel. Who is going to stop him? The UN? Did they stop the illegal torture? No. Are they this time going to do something and get sanctions put on America or whatever? Lol even thinking of such a thing. Trump knows he isn't bound by the laws and regulations of weaklings who can't enforce them. Only the Republican party can slow him down and Trump's guys have already been making it clear to the establishment Republicans that going to war with Trump will end badly for them.

 

On 1/28/2017 at 9:28 AM, Rozalia said:

 

Why are you even saying this to me? As I've told you its all marketing which Trump is a master of. What you say is irrelevant when he can sell it as Mexico having paid for it (though if remittance is enough then it'll just be the cherry on top). You can state such things if you wish, the whole media can state such things if it likes and as I said, irrelevant. 

You forget Trump is already tripling the border guard and if further amounts are needed as Mexico collapses then oh well, he'll sell it for himself positively.

 

On 1/29/2017 at 8:19 AM, Rozalia said:

 

Lie or a half truth, its quite irrelevant what it is when it comes to these things. You heavily underestimate the number this affects if you think it only covers 15%, in fact to say only 15% wouldn't be affected would be closer. The rapid anti-Trump people will never be reached with anything no, but they are a tiny minority. To everyone else they will see it as him having done as he said he would. Why wouldn't they? He has been doing promise after promise with nimble speed and even many of his most staunch opponents (Progressives) have taken notice so imagine for an ordinary person more in the "middle". When the time comes that will be in people's minds and those doing the pushback, the media who nobody trusts and the enemies of Trump who have been wrong every step of the way on Trump's promises will be ignored. 

 

On 1/29/2017 at 10:20 PM, Rozalia said:

 

Why shouldn't Trump break such things? When did that stop Obama exactly? When will that stop the next guy? Trump has access to an expanded apparatus which he may well decide to to grow even larger if he so pleases. If he wants it done then he will do it and nobody will stop him and you know it. Obama got away with it with his pretty words while Trump will get away with it through sheer strength.

On 2/20/2017 at 11:41 AM, Rozalia said:

 

As I've already told you I don't need to defend such things. Crowd size for example got a lot of attention, no doubt to plan, and ultimately so what? Lets state that Trump lied... and? Trump's persona in the public mind both in his supporters and enemies is that he is braggadocious. Catch him out on that and you win zero while he gets you to waste time and energy talking about a meaningless trifle while his picks were all getting through. 

 

You'll find that there wasn't much context or other quotes relevant anyway, most of it is either auto-fellatio, passive-aggressive rants, and some occasional sensible policy. 

 

Also, it's hard for people to say it's all a red scare when a bipartisan Senate and House approved an independent investigator who previously served under a Republican administration to look into ties between a campaign and Russia. It also doesn't help when Trump's son publishes emails that obviously state he tried to get compromising information from a Russian agent to help his father defeat his political opponent in the election. Again, what a dumbass. 

 

Edited July 13, 2017 by Caecus

[Rozalia]

1 & 3: And? What has happened to make my claim false exactly? 3 makes it clear that is all a matter of selling it. If he can point at something and say it constitutes Mexico paying for it then to the people who matter to him that is how it will be seen. You know this is true. 

2: His directive went through regardless of talk of it being illegal or whatever nonsense. Only issue in it is it didn't apply to those currently being built. 

4: Another one of these. Yes, I have told you several times that was is true or false doesn't matter. Only perception does. Refute me. You can't. You know it's true. As for promises... he has been doing them as people wish so... what is the problem? Supreme court picks were Conservative as he promised people. Travel ban was put in place even if it was blocked several times and didn't cover some states. Even if it never actually happens (though that is changing) his supporters will perceive it as him having tried and being stopped by cowards which is enough. The wall is currently having designs and plans looked at. Money coming from Congress but Trump at times would specify Mexico would pay later so plenty of time for him to find something to point at as having come from Mexico (NAFTA renegotiating with worse terms for Mexico alone can do that). 

5: Am I supposed to be wrong here? If Obama got away with expanding such things (like Bush did before him) then what stops Trump? The Republican held congress? Antifa? Come now. 

6: What did I say wrong there? Recent events have been talked about all the way back when the supreme court pick stuff was going on. All that time the media and opponents have focused largely on Russia while the Republican party has ran rampant. Certain elements within the Republican party have been more a resistance than the so called resistance. Been that bad. 

Why is so much always made of someone apparently been a Republican or having served them? The implication to me always comes off as if Republicans are credible in roles like that which is... an implication I'd think people would not want to give out.
Anyway Trump Jr was advised by Assange himself apparently on releasing them himself as otherwise Anti-Trump opponents would be quoting bits and pieces here and there for maximum hurt. Releasing them himself looks good and leaves less room for that. Go and talk among Trump folk and what you'll hear is that he wasn't like the lying Hillary/Democrats, that he was honest by releasing them. So from a start such emails will cut no mustard with Trump supporters. Second there is nothing in them. He talked to a Russian, that is it pretty much. 

[matt2004]

1 hour ago, Doc Martini said:

All of your blame on the Tories is the result of having a centralized system which has pitfalls built into it.

I simply do not like Single-Payer Healthcare. I see troubles which can be avoided if the US swings that direction.

Call me an idiot if you disagree with me. I will call you an idiot if you love a centralized monopoly for your Healthcare provider.

 

When Labour brought in the NHS in 1948, Britain changed the world.The continued existence after the Tories trying to kill it with ideological cuts is praise enough. Labour/CoOp, Green and I believe LDM own figures from research show that 48% of people cite the NHS as the major reason that makes them proud to be British.

 

Nobody forces you to use NHS care. You can take out private insurance with BUPA or some other tax avoiding firm. At least we don't haveinsurance companies injecting millions of pounds into politicians.

[Doktor Avalanche]

42 minutes ago, Matt2004 said:

When Labour brought in the NHS in 1948, Britain changed the world.The continued existence after the Tories trying to kill it with ideological cuts is praise enough. Labour/CoOp, Green and I believe LDM own figures from research show that 48% of people cite the NHS as the major reason that makes them proud to be British.

 

Nobody forces you to use NHS care. You can take out private insurance with BUPA or some other tax avoiding firm. At least we don't haveinsurance companies injecting millions of pounds into politicians.

LOL you sound like a spokesman for the Labour Party. You are pretty much advertising.