Trump

[ShockingButTrue]

Pretty weird stuff. No KU fan here - you talk about them an awful lot, though. Hiding something?



I know of a provisionally licensed PhD on here who can probably squeeze you in her busy schedule.

Less than average attempt at humor. Barely believable too, no surprise. But for you that's am improvement. I know somewhere you got it in 'ya. Keep trying.

Oh yeah, what about the Supreme Court's decision today. Racist? Anti religion? National security?

[Play Angry]

Less than average attempt at humor. Barely believable too, no surprise. But for you that's am improvement. I know somewhere you got it in 'ya. Keep trying.

Cute coming from a closet Beaker. Why such disdain for the humor of WSU grads? I think we're a funny enough group, but hey, if you don't like us that's fine - we don't care much for KU fans either.

Oh yeah, what about the Supreme Court's decision today. Racist? Anti religion? National security?

Thanks for asking - I think the current iteration passes muster under the Constitution. Not an efficient way to achieve the desired ends, though.

[pinstripers]

Oh yeah, what about the Supreme Court's decision today. Racist? Anti religion? National security?

Basically today's unanimous decision shows that the lower court judges who ruled against it are partisan hacks.

[ShockingButTrue]

Basically today's unanimous decision shows that the lower court judges who ruled against it are partisan hacks.

Which was actually the bigger truth.

[Play Angry]

Healthcare bill is messy and getting messier. On one side you have Collins (and possibly Manchin) who will only support an even more liberal version of the bill which offers a lot more Medicaid protection. On the other side you have a handful of conservative holdouts wanting deeper cuts and at least a smidge of deregulation.

Getting to 50 is gonna be tough. This is a plan that mid-90s Hillary would have viewed as a grand slam at that time, so it shouldn't break many conservative hearts if Trumpcare goes down in flames and debate is re-opened on a fresh successor bill. It'll be interesting to see what happens with this.

[ShockerPrez]

I wish they would just say that there is no government solution to healthcare.

You give a safety net to the most needy for their healthcare costs, but you leave insurance alone. There needs to be a difference between what we are after. Government involvement just screws it all up. It all just needs to be repealed entirely.

[ShockingButTrue]

I wish they would just say that there is no government solution to healthcare.

You give a safety net to the most needy for their healthcare costs, but you leave insurance alone. There needs to be a difference between what we are after. Government involvement just screws it all up. It all just needs to be repealed entirely.

Too late it seems... "The Die Is Cast!"

[jdshock]

There's probably a better place for this, but basically all the political discussion has been confined to this thread.

Regardless of your thoughts on the Koch Bros., I recommend checking out the two recent Freakonomics episodes with Charles. If you're a supporter, I'm sure it will only make you like him more. I obviously disagree with him on many, many things. I felt like a few of his answers came across a little too politician-esque, but overall you get the sense he truly believes in the policies he advocates.

The biggest takeaway for liberals has got to be a discussion that happens in episode 2 about specific policies he supports. Basically, he lists a couple of policies he has supported that would be bad for Koch in the short-term. Supporters can surely use this as evidence that he's much more objective in his support than opponents tend to give him credit for. Personally, I think it probably just means the financial incentives are either in the long-run or more hidden, but it clearly means the argument coming from liberals needs to be more nuanced than saying "Those Koch brothers only support policies that help their bottom line."

Anyway, he really comes across well in the interview.

[wufan]

There's probably a better place for this, but basically all the political discussion has been confined to this thread.

Regardless of your thoughts on the Koch Bros., I recommend checking out the two recent Freakonomics episodes with Charles. If you're a supporter, I'm sure it will only make you like him more. I obviously disagree with him on many, many things. I felt like a few of his answers came across a little too politician-esque, but overall you get the sense he truly believes in the policies he advocates.

The biggest takeaway for liberals has got to be a discussion that happens in episode 2 about specific policies he supports. Basically, he lists a couple of policies he has supported that would be bad for Koch in the short-term. Supporters can surely use this as evidence that he's much more objective in his support than opponents tend to give him credit for. Personally, I think it probably just means the financial incentives are either in the long-run or more hidden, but it clearly means the argument coming from liberals needs to be more nuanced than saying "Those Koch brothers only support policies that help their bottom line."

Anyway, he really comes across well in the interview.

I do believe that most ultra-wealthy individuals do believe in political/economics theories that are "good for the country" over food for themselves individually. See Bill Gates, the socialist and Warren Buffett the super-progressive tax bracketeer. Koch is a libertarian. Some extraordinarily intelligent people have disagreed on these theories in the past.

Demonization of "the other" is really what's driving the political divide in this country and it needs to stop. That said, I will absolutely oppose fascists and socialists at every opportunity.

[CBB_Fan]

I wish they would just say that there is no government solution to healthcare. Government involvement just screws it all up.

I'd recommend taking a broader look at the way healthcare works in other countries. We always hear about how Canada and the UK work/don't work, and maybe even occasionally get a small snippet about a mythical Nordic plan, but rarely do people talk about how Andorra or France run their systems. I've reviewed every working healthcare system in the world, and they all have two things in common.

1. They are much simpler.
2. They have heavy government involvement by American standards.

That does not mean they all have single-payer. In fact, single-payer systems are fairly rare. But they all involve price controls, heavy regulations, major subsidies, an individual mandate, and/or government run insurance. The only OECD country with a completely private free-market system is Mexico, which has the lowest healthcare ranking in the OECD (and even then, Mexicans primarily get healthcare through a competing public system, Seguro Popular). I'll breakdown the healthcare systems below (public used to mean both tax-funded or government run):

Andorra - public (CASS) + small private , subsidies, paid as social security, small private
Australia - public (Medicare) + small private, heavy regulations, subsidies
Austria - public + small private
Belgium - public + small private, price oversight, paid as social security
Canada - single-payer (Medicare)
Chile - public (FONASA) + small private
Columbia - public (Nueva EPS) + small private, if denied by insurance can file special claim (tutela) in civil court
Costa Rica - public (Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social) + small private
Cyprus - multipayer (public + private), currently in reform but public sector healthcare covered the employed + self employed
Dominica - primary care funded by Ministry of Health (including dentistry + eye care)
Finland - decentralized public (NHI); money raised at federal level but administered at regional + small private
France - public + private, individual mandate, subsidies from income tax reimburse out-of-pocket costs
Germany - public (Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung) + small private, individual mandate
Greece - national health insurance (Εθνικό Σύστημα Υγείας)
Hong Kong - public (Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme) + small private
Iceland - largely tax funded public (1973 Health Care Act), administered regionally
Ireland - largely public (Health Service Executive), returning to regionally controlled model (Health Boards)
Israel - public + small private, individual mandate to enroll in Kupot Holim,
Italy - public (Sistema sanitario nazionale) + small private
Japan - public subsidies, individual mandate, many insurers but two primary systems (Kenkō-Hoken and Kokumin-Kenkō-Hoken)
Luxembourg - see France;Italy
Malta - public (government healthcare service) + private
Oman - public + private
Netherlands - mostly private, individual mandate, long term care covered publicly (Wet Langdurige Zorg), price controls, government set minimum plans, subsidies for taking on high-risk individuals
New Zealand - was mostly public, now public/private. District health boards manage public hospitals (free of charge services to permanent residents), primary care subsidized.
Norway - hospitals entirely public, youth services free, older services free after meeting deductible
Portugal - two public systems (Serviço Nacional de Saúde, special social health insurance schemes for certain professions) + private,
San Marino - public (Azienda Sanitaria Locale) + private
Saudi Arabia - public + private, individual mandate for those working in private sector
Singapore - largely singe-payer, but no service offered free of charge to prevent overuse
Spain - publicly funded, administered in decentralized manner
Sweden - almost entirely publicly funded, administered regionally
Switzerland - no public system, individual mandate and price controls/regulation (Swiss Federal Law on Health Insurance), subsidy on premiums and treatments
Qatar - national health insurance (Seha), employer mandate for expatriates and self-employed
UK - Single-provider (NHS)

The idea that an entirely private system is viable is not one with substantial evidence outside the US. The vast majority of industrializing countries have a large publicly financed system covering ~70%, and supplementary private insurance covering the remainder. Some are entirely or largely funded at the federal level but decentralizing to prevent federal control of the system, like the Nordic countries and Spain. Other are largely private, but provide price controls and subsidies. But none rely solely on free-market forces to reduce healthcare costs.

We should learn from their example. We don't need single-payer, but we do need a plan. We can go with entirely private insurance, but we still need price controls + a mandate if we do. We can have a public option and move private insurance to a supplementary role. We cannot afford to have a ton of competing systems and a ridiculously complex system of laws and regulation to cover all of them.

[ShockerPrez]

I think most of us know what other countries have done. I dont believe that its real innovative-more government control...

As said. The government needs to worry about how to provide healthcare to the poor. I would prefer that we not take measures that make it worse for the majority.

And a few points I would add/ask.

What sacrifices to our current healthcare system are we willing to make? Changes have consequences. Currently, we are driving the cost up for everyone. But other laws will have different effects on our healthcare system.

What is the ultimate goal? Do we want an innivative healthcare system the provides the best healthcare to the most people, or do we want equality of mediocre healthcare provided to everyone.

[wufan]

My preference is for free market healthcare, which we haven't had in my lifetime. My second choice would be single payer. In both cases, the bottom ~ 15% of income should have free coverage. Right now we have some bastardization where nobody knows the cost or what they will pay.

[WuDrWu]

I think most of us know what other countries have done. I dont believe that its real innovative-more government control...

As said. The government needs to worry about how to provide healthcare to the poor. I would prefer that we not take measures that make it worse for the majority.

And a few points I would add/ask.

What sacrifices to our current healthcare system are we willing to make? Changes have consequences. Currently, we are driving the cost up for everyone. But other laws will have different effects on our healthcare system.

What is the ultimate goal? Do we want an innivative healthcare system the provides the best healthcare to the most people, or do we want equality of mediocre healthcare provided to everyone.

Excellent forethought and questions. Questions that ALL our politicians are too scared to ask and or answer.

Your last one though, I'm afraid, has already been answered.

What is the ultimate goal? Do we want an innivative healthcare system the provides the best healthcare to the most people, or do we want equality of mediocre healthcare provided to everyone.

A few Pollyannaish types will say you can have both, but clearly you can't. That being said, the answer is, equality. We are a country that believes, at least when the government gets involved, we need equality over exceptionalism. Fairness over greatness. It's least common denominator thinking that is dumbing down our country.

Why we can't have a mostly free society, with a safety net for those that truly need it, is beyond me. But clearly we can't because of wildfirelike spreading of entitlement thinking.

[WuDrWu]

And can we please stop comparing various countries health care plans? Some with no immigration (Australia) some with tiny or very manageable population numbers and practically EVERY country that isn't charged with DEFENDING THE FREE WORLD.

Eliminate 90% of our military and we probably could spend more on healthcare. Of course do this and radical Islamic fundamentalists will be counting the dead in the streets all across the world and celebrating.

Nearly half of an almost 4 trillion dollar federal budget goes to entitlement spending. More than 3/4 of a trillion goes to military. Roughly the remaining 1/4 is "discretionary" lol. Until we fix or at least are willing to entertain the slowing of growth of entitlements (and clearly we are not interested) and or the world becomes a less dangerous place, I don't think we're going to make a lot of headway here.

[shockmonster]

My preference is for free market healthcare, which we haven't had in my lifetime. My second choice would be single payer. In both cases, the bottom ~ 15% of income should have free coverage. Right now we have some bastardization where nobody knows the cost or what they will pay.

As I have pointed out before. Single payer in the US with 325 Million will be full of fraud. Doctors and lawyers have been involved with fraud with medi-caid, receiving kick backs for services not done. In a single payer system, the number of people receiving services would increase more than 10-15 times. With Washington in charge, fraud would be rampant. Canada's single payer system is for 35 million people, probably less than our current population.