President Donald J. Trump

[PB the Deplorable]

That is what scares me. They actually think communism works...

The ''educational'' system, Fake Media, academia, Hollywood, and lazy parents from ''the greatest generation'' have really done a number on people.

People deserve what we are going to get in this country.  The problem is, the rest of us don't.

... She said that those who could not adapt could live in primitive settings outside the cities. The rest of the land will be "Off Limits" because it is 'healing'. I could not stand living in a crowded city, so I guess I'd be out there in a little house on the prairie setting.

Maybe it is just me but I question why we should trust these people. The woman said that we evolved from hunter/gatherer to agrarian to industrial and now they want to force the next change and she was excited because it has never been done before. What if it goes terribly wrong?...

Pol Pot marched everyone out of the cities - every single person - to go work in the rice paddies.  Anyone with an education, who spoke English, wore glasses, owned a book, had a job other than a laborer, resisted in any way, etc, etc, was simply shot.

Take a look at the Occupy/BLM rioters.  Completely full of hate and anger.  They would be different if given a chance? 

[Lt.Uhura]

No it isn't.  It's the worst alternative.

Why would anyone willingly entrust their healthcare to the whims of government officials? 

What makes them so special?  Why do we always have to assume they are the most competent and they are the ones who have our best interests at heart?  Where's the proof of that?  Where is the evidence the public sector does this better than the private sector? 

Deja vu...We've already had this discussion, and you were just as ill-informed then as you are now. I see you haven't learned anything on the subject in the meantime, just running your same old worn-out "it can't be done" tape. Maybe you simply forgot, if so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and repeat what I told you then...

Who says a single payer/universal plan has to be run by the government? There are a number of potential options, including contacting the care, or even hybrid systems. Also, you can't be serious by implying that the private, profit-driven insurance industry would have "our best interests at heart". Hahaha...right! Hahahaha!

[pyewacket]

Pol Pot marched everyone out of the cities - every single person - to go work in the rice paddies.  Anyone with an education, who spoke English, wore glasses, owned a book, had a job other than a laborer, resisted in any way, etc, etc, was simply shot.

Take a look at the Occupy/BLM rioters.  Completely full of hate and anger.  They would be different if given a chance?

Another "success" story.

Cuba Kills Another Dissident
After Obama’s detente: More tourists on the island and more repression.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/cuba-kills-another-dissident-1488751707

[GravitySucks]

Greed. All insurance companies are publicly owned. If we went to single-payer (nationalized?) healthcare, how would dismantling a large part of our economy be handled?

Millions of people own stock in those companies. Millions more are vested in pension plans that own the bulk of the stock in those companies. For decades people have made financial decisions based on investing in a legal entity. What is to happen if the government all of a sudden "outlaws" health insurance?

This doesn't just affect the hundreds of thousands of people that work for those companies, but the millions that rely on the investments that were made in those companies.

Greed.  It is called the capitalist system.

When I go to sell my house, I don't take the lowest offer because some poor family can't afford my asking price. I keep it on the market until I get an offer I am satisfied with hoping that I make the most profit I can. Is that greed?

Insurance companies, whether you believe it or not, have reacted to the market place and have tried to control costs and come up with plans like HMOs designed to keep people healthy instead of only treating them once they have a terminal illness. In my 40plus years working in industry, I saw plenty of insurance companies trying to undercut their competitors to get our business. It was Obamacare came along with regulations that made every plan identical that removed the incentive for innovation and competitiveness.

Single-payer sounds really cool. Please tell me the mechanics for dismantling the insurance industry and making the shareholders of those companies whole in the process.

p.s. All of those profits are currently taxed at 35%. And the dividends that are payed out to stockholders are taxed as well. The government makes a killing off the insurance industry.

[albrecht]

Greed. All insurance companies are publicly owned. If we went to single-payer (nationalized?) healthcare, how would dismantling a large part of our economy be handled?

Millions of people own stock in those companies. Millions more are vested in pension plans that own the bulk of the stock in those companies. For decades people have made financial decisions based on investing in a legal entity. What is to happen if the government all of a sudden "outlaws" health insurance?

This doesn't just affect the hundreds of thousands of people that work for those companies, but the millions that rely on the investments that were made in those companies.

Greed.  It is called the capitalist system.

When I go to sell my house, I don't take the lowest offer because some poor family can't afford my asking price. I keep it on the market until I get an offer I am satisfied with hoping that I make the most profit I can. Is that greed?

Insurance companies, whether you believe it or not, have reacted to the market place and have tried to control costs and come up with plans like HMOs designed to keep people healthy instead of only treating them once they have a terminal illness. In my 40plus years working in industry, I saw plenty of insurance companies trying to undercut their competitors to get our business. It was Obamacare came along with regulations that made every plan identical that removed the incentive for innovation and competitiveness.

Single-payer sounds really cool. Please tell me the mechanics for dismantling the insurance industry and making the shareholders of those companies whole in the process.

I would guess it would be a hybrid system like some of the vaunted "socialist" healthcare systems in Europe. There is a base that is publicly funded (by taxes and via a tax on insurance companies) if you make less than X amount of income (or it could be wealth-based but that is harder to realize) and if you make more than X you must buy private insurance from a competitive market (or your employer does this.) To do this, feasibly though, in a country so large and diverse as the US (keep in mind most of these countries that have the fully single-payer or hybrid-system are small) you also need to reform our tort system and also bring in more government rationing (of what "kind" of doctors to train, deployment of specialists, cost/benefit analysis of where to put hospitals, and some kind of salary cap or scale on earnings of doctors, etc.) Of course, we already do this, to an extent in Medicare/aid, via private insurance, via County and State hospitals, "teaching" hospitals vs others, private sector, loans, etc. It all comes down to rationing- no matter WHAT anyone says. The argument is how/who does the rationing: whether a central planner is best, a private system is best, a more local system is best, the person, the government, the insurance company or some hybrid system is best.

[21st Century Man]

Greed. All insurance companies are publicly owned. If we went to single-payer (nationalized?) healthcare, how would dismantling a large part of our economy be handled?

Millions of people own stock in those companies. Millions more are vested in pension plans that own the bulk of the stock in those companies. For decades people have made financial decisions based on investing in a legal entity. What is to happen if the government all of a sudden "outlaws" health insurance?

This doesn't just affect the hundreds of thousands of people that work for those companies, but the millions that rely on the investments that were made in those companies.

Greed.  It is called the capitalist system.

When I go to sell my house, I don't take the lowest offer because some poor family can't afford my asking price. I keep it on the market until I get an offer I am satisfied with hoping that I make the most profit I can. Is that greed?

Insurance companies, whether you believe it or not, have reacted to the market place and have tried to control costs and come up with plans like HMOs designed to keep people healthy instead of only treating them once they have a terminal illness. In my 40plus years working in industry, I saw plenty of insurance companies trying to undercut their competitors to get our business. It was Obamacare came along with regulations that made every plan identical that removed the incentive for innovation and competitiveness.

Single-payer sounds really cool. Please tell me the mechanics for dismantling the insurance industry and making the shareholders of those companies whole in the process.

p.s. All of those profits are currently taxed at 35%. And the dividends that are payed out to stockholders are taxed as well. The government makes a killing off the insurance industry.

I'm coming to more of an opinion that health care should not be controlled by those invested in making a profit.   However, the government does a crummy job too. Everybody needs health care and it is so damn expensive these days.  There needs to be some sort of price controls put in place. I don't know what the answer is.  I think albrecht has some good ideas on the subject.

[PB the Deplorable]

One last time I am going to assume someone has a serious question and wants a serious answer. When I have a question I go directly to the source. Here is the link to the judges' opinion on the North Carolina voter idea law that was struck down. Warning: There are a lot of words and some of them are big words:

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/161468.P.pdf

Here is a short summary for the semi-literate:

North Carolina voter ID law overturned on appeal
Besides eliminating voter ID requirements in North Carolina, Friday's ruling erases provisions that prohibited same-day registration and out-of-precinct provisional voting, as well as those that restricted early voting.
The court found that the North Carolina legislature enacted the provisions after it gathered data on the use, by race, of certain voting practices.
The provisions "target African-Americans with almost surgical precision" and "impose cures for problems that did not exist," the judges wrote.

And here are a few of the other states where the laws were overturned or revised that you can research on your own:

This was the third federal court ruling against voter identification laws this month. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled July 20 that Texas' voter ID law violated the Voting Rights Act, and federal judges softened a Wisconsin law on July 19.

If you still don't understand I suggest you have your 3rd grade teacher explain it to you

... Did you read my serious reply to your serious question?

I did, thanks for the link.

My original questions were how requiring proof of citizenship to register, and a photo ID to vote, are discriminatory and suppress the minority vote.  Let's just leave it at that and not get distracted with the rest of it, like early voting, same day registration, and the rest. 

I'm not really interested in statistics either, because we all know they can be easily manipulated to get the desired outcome, and can be misleading (for example perhaps the reason minority voting increased when photo ID was not required was because fraud was easier).  But that's what these cases are built on when they go before hand-picked, friendly judges, so I'll play along.

The case you linked found five distinct problems with the NC law.  One of which was the photo ID requirement.  Let's focus on that, since it pertains to my original question (the other four were early voting, same day registrants, provisional voting, and ''pre-registration'' (16 and 17 year olds registering in advance for when they turned 18)).  We can discuss the validity of those another time.

The NC law required the ID to be those issued by the state DMV (driver's license or non-driving ID).  The court found blacks disproportionately lacked the DMV ID.  They didn't explain why.  The court also found that alternate IDs more likely to be used by blacks weren't allowed at the polls for voting.  What these IDs were and who issued them also isn't mentioned. 

The bottom line is the court didn't rule against requiring proof of citizenship to vote - that wasn't mentioned.  The court also didn't rule against requiring photo ID to vote - just the limitation to an ID more likely to be possessed by whites. 

So this case was not on point, and my questions still stand.

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

The ''educational'' system, Fake Media, academia, Hollywood, and lazy parents from ''the greatest generation'' have really done a number on people.

People deserve what we are going to get in this country.  The problem is, the rest of us don't.


Pol Pot marched everyone out of the cities - every single person - to go work in the rice paddies.  Anyone with an education, who spoke English, wore glasses, owned a book, had a job other than a laborer, resisted in any way, etc, etc, was simply shot.

Take a look at the Occupy/BLM rioters.  Completely full of hate and anger.  They would be different if given a chance?

I wish I had a nickel for every time someone told me that they wished Pol Pot was running the country. I'd much prefer someone like Idi Amin, because that man had charisma and more panache in his pinkie toe than Pol Pot did in his whole scrawny body. To be honest, for a genocidal maniac, he looked like he was kind of a drip.

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

.

[21st Century Man]

Deja vu...We've already had this discussion, and you were just as ill-informed then as you are now. I see you haven't learned anything on the subject in the meantime, just running your same old worn-out "it can't be done" tape. Maybe you simply forgot, if so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and repeat what I told you then...

Who says a single payer/universal plan has to be run by the government? There are a number of potential options, including contacting the care, or even hybrid systems. Also, you can't be serious by implying that the private, profit-driven insurance industry would have "our best interests at heart". Hahaha...right! Hahahaha!

I find myself reluctantly agreeing with you on this especially the second paragraph.

[GravitySucks]

I'm coming to more of an opinion that health care should not be controlled by those invested in making a profit.   However, the government does a crummy job too. Everybody needs health care and it is so damn expensive these days.  There needs to be some sort of price controls put in place. I don't know what the answer is.  I think albrecht has some good ideas on the subject.

There is a difference between health care and health insurance, although emotions cause them both to be spoken of as one entity.

There are a lot of things wrong with both industries, many of them caused by the government.

I am a vet and I refuse to go to the VA. Once the government proves they can fix the VA and deliver quality health care, I might consider them as an option for my health care.

The VA is so mismanaged, most vets do not even qualify for care at a VA hospital. It differs by county, but there is a "means" test for access to the VA system unless you were discharged with a disability.

[PB the Deplorable]

I wish I had a nickel for every time someone told me that they wished Pol Pot was running the country. I'd much prefer someone like Idi Amin, because that man had charisma and more panache in his pinkie toe than Pol Pot did in his whole scrawny body. To be honest, for a genocidal maniac, he looked like he was kind of a drip.

But the people in Venezuela, they wanted the disaster their guy caused?

[Meister_000]

The Guardian ~ Feb, 2017

🚨STOP the:
-Tyrannical
- Racist
- Unfit
- Misogynist
- Pussy Grabber

Women of America:
We're going on Strike (March 8th).
"A Day Without A Woman"
🚨Join Us so Trump will see Our Power!
"It is important not to lose momentum."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/06/women-strike-trump-resistance-power

[Lt.Uhura]

Greed. All insurance companies are publicly owned. If we went to single-payer (nationalized?) healthcare, how would dismantling a large part of our economy be handled?

Millions of people own stock in those companies. Millions more are vested in pension plans that own the bulk of the stock in those companies. For decades people have made financial decisions based on investing in a legal entity. What is to happen if the government all of a sudden "outlaws" health insurance?

This doesn't just affect the hundreds of thousands of people that work for those companies, but the millions that rely on the investments that were made in those companies.

Greed.  It is called the capitalist system.

When I go to sell my house, I don't take the lowest offer because some poor family can't afford my asking price. I keep it on the market until I get an offer I am satisfied with hoping that I make the most profit I can. Is that greed?

False equivalency. Buying a home isn't a necessity. One can continue to rent, or buy from someone else at a lower price. Health care is a necessity. We simply can't go backwards to the dark ages of healthcare where pre-existing conditions excluded certain individuals from health coverage. And as a civilized society, we are not (yet) at a place where we can refuse someone care based on their inability to pay.

The problem with the private health insurance industry isn't so much their profiting, it's that they hold the key in deciding to either provide or refuse treatment. They are allowed to make the rules, typically based on profit margins, and in doing so often overrule medical decisions made by healthcare providers.

[Meister_000]

Time magazine ~ Feb. 2017

[21st Century Man]

There is a difference between health care and health insurance, although emotions cause them both to be spoken of as one entity.

There are a lot of things wrong with both industries, many of them caused by the government.

I am a vet and I refuse to go to the VA. Once the government proves they can fix the VA and deliver quality health care, I might consider them as an option for my health care.

The VA is so mismanaged, most vets do not even qualify for care at a VA hospital. It differs by county, but there is a "means" test for access to the VA system unless you were discharged with a disability.

Yeah I know.  I don't think the government should be in charge of health care either.  I'm clueless as to what the answer is.  One thing I do know is this new bill that the Republicans put forth is extremely lacking.  Obamacare lite, indeed.

[GravitySucks]

Yeah I know.  I don't think the government should be in charge of health care either.  I'm clueless as to what the answer is.  One thing I do know is this new bill that the Republicans put forth is extremely lacking.  Obamacare lite, indeed.

The first law that should be passed is that the Congress cannot exempt themselves from any law they pass.

[PB the Deplorable]

Deja vu...We've already had this discussion, and you were just as ill-informed then as you are now. I see you haven't learned anything on the subject in the meantime, just running your same old worn-out "it can't be done" tape...

Given the general incompetence of government agencies, given the shoddy service, given the constant budget overruns, given what was promised in ObamaCare vs what was delivered, given the general cravenness and self serving of those whose only real skill is getting themselves elected or appointed, given the seriousness of OUR HEALTH CARE...

Given all that, the burden of proof of this brave new world of health care is on your side 100%.  Let's see it.

[21st Century Man]

The first law that should be passed is that the Congress cannot exempt themselves from any law they pass.

Amen, bro.  Make it a constitutional amendment though.

[mikuthing01]

The Guardian ~ Feb, 2017

🚨STOP the:
-Tyrannical
- Racist
- Unfit
- Misogynist
- Pussy Grabber

Women of America:
We're going on Strike (March 8th).
"A Day Without A Woman"
🚨Join Us so Trump will see Our Power!
"It is important not to lose momentum."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/06/women-strike-trump-resistance-power

No man would want to grab your pussy darling you and all of your lesbian friends are safe

[GravitySucks]

False equivalency. Buying a home isn't a necessity. One can continue to rent, or buy from someone else at a lower price. Health care is a necessity. We simply can't go backwards to the dark ages of healthcare where pre-existing conditions excluded certain individuals from health coverage. And as a civilized society, we are not (yet) at a place where we can refuse someone care based on their inability to pay.

The problem with the private health insurance industry isn't so much their profiting, it's that they hold the key in deciding to either provide or refuse treatment. They are allowed to make the rules, typically based on profit margins, and in doing so often overrule medical decisions made by healthcare providers.

I wasn't trying to equate selling a house with selling insurance. I was making the point that it is easy to call the evil insurance companies greedy when in actuality we act out of the same motivation in our own affairs.

This is a very complex issue. I still think market-based solutions are the best approach, even if it takes some regulations to ensure continuity of coverage and basic access to health care.

I do not believe the government would be any more benevolent in doling out the priciest health care options to everyone. They don't do it with Medicare or the VA, what makes you think they would all of a sudden become an advocate for the patients?

[albrecht]

I wish I had a nickel for every time someone told me that they wished Pol Pot was running the country. I'd much prefer someone like Idi Amin, because that man had charisma and more panache in his pinkie toe than Pol Pot did in his whole scrawny body. To be honest, for a genocidal maniac, he looked like he was kind of a drip.

One of my favorite movies:
"Idi Amin Dada"
Check it out, even animals talk to obey him.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071544/?ref_=nv_sr_2

[Lt.Uhura]

Amen, bro.  Make it a constitutional amendment though.

We'll need a bipartisan committee to study this. It should take about 4 years, after which time we'll start all over 

[PB the Deplorable]

I'm coming to more of an opinion that health care should not be controlled by those invested in making a profit.   However, the government does a crummy job too. Everybody needs health care and it is so damn expensive these days.  There needs to be some sort of price controls put in place. I don't know what the answer is.  I think albrecht has some good ideas on the subject.

There is a disconnect between those who pay for insurance (employers or taxpayers), and those who use the service (employees, various people whose insurance is from various govt agencies).  People don't typically have much choice what coverage they get, and there is no incentive for anyone to keep costs down.


People should choose and pay for their own insurance.  It doesn't make sense for routine office visits, minor health issues, low end prescriptions, etc to be paid for by an insurance company, any more than fill ups, tune ups, and maintenance should be paid for by car insurance.

If people bought high deductible policies for catastrophic illness and injury, and paid for it themselves, much of this would go away.  There could be tax deductions or credits, handout programs for the poor, etc. 

People would pay into their policies over their lifetimes - when they are young they wouldn't really need a lot of coverage, when they are elderly the company would pay out higher amounts than their premiums (like Medicare, only not a failing Ponzi scheme)

And yes, it would require government regulations and oversight.

[PB the Deplorable]

The Guardian ~ Feb, 2017

🚨STOP the:
-Tyrannical
- Racist
- Unfit
- Misogynist
- Pussy Grabber

Women of America:
We're going on Strike (March 8th).
"A Day Without A Woman"
🚨Join Us so Trump will see Our Power!
"It is important not to lose momentum."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/06/women-strike-trump-resistance-power

“Mad Hatter: “Why is a raven like a writing-desk?”
“Have you guessed the riddle yet?” the Hatter said, turning to Alice again.
“No, I give up,” Alice replied: “What’s the answer?”
“I haven’t the slightest idea,” said the Hatter”

[Meister_000]

No man would want to grab your pussy darling you and all of your lesbian friends are safe

Quite literally *nothing* is safe from Donald Trump & co. â€" that is what must be "grabbed".

[JesusJuice]

Quite literally *nothing* is safe from Donald Trump & co. â€" _that_  is what must be "grabbed".

[mikuthing01]

Quite literally *nothing* is safe from Donald Trump & co. â€" _that_  is what must be "grabbed".

Well as we found out today Obama & co is not safe they will all be sitting in a prison cell for their corruption. Than you Julian Assange Senpai for WikiLeaks Vault 7  and helping put Obama in prison desu!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGsK5zXyjiE

[Lt.Uhura]

I wasn't trying to equate selling a house with selling insurance. I was making the point that it is easy to call the evil insurance companies greedy when in actuality we act out of the same motivation in our own affairs.

This is a very complex issue. I still think market-based solutions are the best approach, even if it takes some requlations to ensure continuity of coverage and basic access to health care.

I do not believe the government would be any more benevolent in doling out the priciest health care iptions to evryone. They don't do it with Medicare or the VA, what makes you think they would all of a sudden become an advocate for the patients?

One thing the government should get, is it saves money to provide preventive care, doing everything they can by providing an integrated health care system that keeps people out of the ER and the hospital. Currently, insurance companies can, and do decline to provide supportive/follow up services when people are discharged from the hospital, but then refuse to pay hospitals when patients need to be re-admitted. Right now it's a win/win for the insurance companies--the gatekeepers.

As I've said before, the VA isn't a good example of an average health care system, as they serve a patient population with multiple chronic medical and psychological conditions. Chronic conditions are costly, requiring multiple visits, services and providers. I agree it could use an overhaul, but the VA system will always demand more services than the general population. War isn't cheap, and for too many soldiers, the battle is never over.

[Taaroa]

The Guardian ~ Feb, 2017

🚨STOP the:
-Tyrannical
- Racist
- Unfit
- Misogynist
- Pussy Grabber

Women of America:
We're going on Strike (March 8th).
"A Day Without A Woman"
🚨Join Us so Trump will see Our Power!
"It is important not to lose momentum."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/06/women-strike-trump-resistance-power

A day without women drivers sounds lovely   :