US presidential election 2020:Winner?
Poll: US presidential election 2020:Winner?
Voting Closed
Total Members Polled: 684
Discussion
Here is another dynamic to consider. Do more Dem voters want to adhere to Certain principles or do more just want to best Trump? If it is beat Trump, then the irony is that they will have to nominate another version of Trump (Bloomberg) but with a “D”’in front of his name instead of an “R”. This is another tug of war going on within the Dem party.
jimmyjimjim said:
And what the middle classes understand well are the two laws of taxation -
1. Paying taxes for the rich is largely voluntary. They either hire a better tax lawyer than the government to avoid it (and they pay more than the government, their lawyers are better), offshore it until the tax regime changes, or otherwise put their money out of reach.
2. The poor don't pay taxes. They don't have the money to do so.
That leaves the middle classes. They got hit by Obamacare the first time and will be very shy of getting stuck a second time.
Cynical maybe, but USA is a weird country:1. Paying taxes for the rich is largely voluntary. They either hire a better tax lawyer than the government to avoid it (and they pay more than the government, their lawyers are better), offshore it until the tax regime changes, or otherwise put their money out of reach.
2. The poor don't pay taxes. They don't have the money to do so.
That leaves the middle classes. They got hit by Obamacare the first time and will be very shy of getting stuck a second time.
All those church goers that love their Christianity, their "caring and sharing" on sunday morning, those hypocritical charities and foundations with their cheezy fundraisers setup as a tax avoidance scheme in which the (semi-)wealthy with smoothed faces pretend to give a f
k about something while buying social status, singing the national anthem before every sports event (hand on hart obviously), a new hospital wing named after some wealthy sponsor so they can brag about it at the country club.Seven aircraft carriers floating around the place but just paying for and setting up a decent functioning healthcare system, seen as a basic need and foundation of society in any other developed first world country's, seems a bridge too far.
DeltonaS said:
Cynical maybe, but USA is a weird country:
All those church goers that love their Christianity, their "caring and sharing" on sunday morning, those hypocritical charities and foundations with their cheezy fundraisers setup as a tax avoidance scheme in which the (semi-)wealthy with smoothed faces pretend to give a fk about something while buying social status, singing the national anthem before every sports event (hand on hart obviously), a new hospital wing named after some wealthy sponsor so they can brag about it at the country club.
Seven aircraft carriers floating around the place but just paying for and setting up a decent functioning healthcare system, seen as a basic need and foundation of society in any other developed first world country's, seems a bridge too far.
How very crude and somewhat, might I politely say, ill informed of you. Last year, Americans gave more than $389 billion to charity, with individual donations-- versus corporate or foundation donations -- Did we as a nation do something personal to you to warrant such vitriol? All those church goers that love their Christianity, their "caring and sharing" on sunday morning, those hypocritical charities and foundations with their cheezy fundraisers setup as a tax avoidance scheme in which the (semi-)wealthy with smoothed faces pretend to give a f
k about something while buying social status, singing the national anthem before every sports event (hand on hart obviously), a new hospital wing named after some wealthy sponsor so they can brag about it at the country club.Seven aircraft carriers floating around the place but just paying for and setting up a decent functioning healthcare system, seen as a basic need and foundation of society in any other developed first world country's, seems a bridge too far.
BTW, it’s 11aircraft carriers.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/a...
Edited by Jimbeaux on Wednesday 26th February 01:58
DeltonaS said:
Seven aircraft carriers floating around the place but just paying for and setting up a decent functioning healthcare system, seen as a basic need and foundation of society in any other developed first world country's, seems a bridge too far.
and what do you think helps underpin the peace and stability needed for a functioning global economy that then pays for all the goodies desired by the left?unrepentant said:
Companies already pay the lions share of premiums so the sensible way to fund single payer healthcare would be to put a tax on businesses equivalent to what they are currently spending on insurance and a commensurate tax on individuals.
You than remove insurance companies from the equation, they made around $25 billion in profit last year but their cost would be many times that. That is a big black hole of cost that delivers zero in the way of medical benefit. You then allow Medicare and Medicaid providers to negotiate with drug company's as the NHS and every other major service supplier does and that will reduce drug prices. You also throw away the chargemaster and have transparent, negotiated costs for medical services. That may mean that "non profit" hospitals have to pay their desk jockey CEO's a bit less than the $4 or 5 million they currently earn but that's show business.
Once you've done all that the cost of healthcare falls dramatically and becomes affordable as it is in all other western countries. If we have to pay a little extra tax then so what? The knowledge that a serious illness is not going to bankrupt you will help to cushion the blow.
Just as in the UK, those who wish to pay extra and have private care of the BUPA kind should still be free to do so.
It is entirely possible for the US health care system to cost less than it does. France for example spends 11% of GDP on healthcare and their healthcare system is very well regarded.You than remove insurance companies from the equation, they made around $25 billion in profit last year but their cost would be many times that. That is a big black hole of cost that delivers zero in the way of medical benefit. You then allow Medicare and Medicaid providers to negotiate with drug company's as the NHS and every other major service supplier does and that will reduce drug prices. You also throw away the chargemaster and have transparent, negotiated costs for medical services. That may mean that "non profit" hospitals have to pay their desk jockey CEO's a bit less than the $4 or 5 million they currently earn but that's show business.
Once you've done all that the cost of healthcare falls dramatically and becomes affordable as it is in all other western countries. If we have to pay a little extra tax then so what? The knowledge that a serious illness is not going to bankrupt you will help to cushion the blow.
Just as in the UK, those who wish to pay extra and have private care of the BUPA kind should still be free to do so.
The problem with many of the proposals coming as far as I can see is that they both extend coverage and do not have many measures to reduce existing costs. All they will be doing therefore is increasing costs but putting those costs on the taxpayer. Perhaps businesses will pay the difference, or likely not.
Jimbeaux said:
How very crude and somewhat, might I politely say, ill informed of you. Last year, Americans gave more than $389 billion to charity, with individual donations-- versus corporate or foundation donations -- Did we as a nation do something personal to you to warrant such vitriol?
BTW, it’s 11aircraft carriers.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/a...
the rest of the world combined now has two more, you're slacking!!!BTW, it’s 11aircraft carriers.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/a...
Edited by Jimbeaux on Wednesday 26th February 01:58
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_car...
JagLover said:
and what do you think helps underpin the peace and stability needed for a functioning global economy that then pays for all the goodies desired by the left?
You think the threat of attack by aircraft does it?Jimbeaux said:
Dem debate in South Carolina coming up tonight. Expect an all out assault On Sanders. Bloomberg has been raining money on the airwaves attacking Sanders. If Sanders makes it through Super Tuesday, (3 March), he will be on his way. If it’s close, the slug fest will get worse. 3 March is either were the moderates close in on Bernie or he pulls away.
After the 'debate' aka Lynch the old dude called Bernie, we still are none the clearer on the key policies, it is all hot air.I hope the next one is better.
JagLover said:
unrepentant said:
Companies already pay the lions share of premiums so the sensible way to fund single payer healthcare would be to put a tax on businesses equivalent to what they are currently spending on insurance and a commensurate tax on individuals.
You than remove insurance companies from the equation, they made around $25 billion in profit last year but their cost would be many times that. That is a big black hole of cost that delivers zero in the way of medical benefit. You then allow Medicare and Medicaid providers to negotiate with drug company's as the NHS and every other major service supplier does and that will reduce drug prices. You also throw away the chargemaster and have transparent, negotiated costs for medical services. That may mean that "non profit" hospitals have to pay their desk jockey CEO's a bit less than the $4 or 5 million they currently earn but that's show business.
Once you've done all that the cost of healthcare falls dramatically and becomes affordable as it is in all other western countries. If we have to pay a little extra tax then so what? The knowledge that a serious illness is not going to bankrupt you will help to cushion the blow.
Just as in the UK, those who wish to pay extra and have private care of the BUPA kind should still be free to do so.
It is entirely possible for the US health care system to cost less than it does. France for example spends 11% of GDP on healthcare and their healthcare system is very well regarded.You than remove insurance companies from the equation, they made around $25 billion in profit last year but their cost would be many times that. That is a big black hole of cost that delivers zero in the way of medical benefit. You then allow Medicare and Medicaid providers to negotiate with drug company's as the NHS and every other major service supplier does and that will reduce drug prices. You also throw away the chargemaster and have transparent, negotiated costs for medical services. That may mean that "non profit" hospitals have to pay their desk jockey CEO's a bit less than the $4 or 5 million they currently earn but that's show business.
Once you've done all that the cost of healthcare falls dramatically and becomes affordable as it is in all other western countries. If we have to pay a little extra tax then so what? The knowledge that a serious illness is not going to bankrupt you will help to cushion the blow.
Just as in the UK, those who wish to pay extra and have private care of the BUPA kind should still be free to do so.
The problem with many of the proposals coming as far as I can see is that they both extend coverage and do not have many measures to reduce existing costs. All they will be doing therefore is increasing costs but putting those costs on the taxpayer. Perhaps businesses will pay the difference, or likely not.
I had a small procedure last year. I was in theatre for 20 minutes. I had no clue what it would cost. The answer was $10k. I have decent employer provided healthcare through Anthem. My co-pay was $3,100! I had a scan two years ago. From walking in to the hospital to walking out was 15 minutes. Very efficient. My co-pay - $1800!
Now imagine you have a chronic illness or cancer. Even with decent coverage, even once your deductibles are met, you can still have crippling bills. I had a friend who died of brain cancer. He went back to work in a terrible state and a lot of pain during treatment because the medical bills were adding up, even with health insurance. He stopped just a couple of weeks before he died.
The system is broken and it needs radical and fundamental change .
Halb said:
Jimbeaux said:
How very crude and somewhat, might I politely say, ill informed of you. Last year, Americans gave more than $389 billion to charity, with individual donations-- versus corporate or foundation donations -- Did we as a nation do something personal to you to warrant such vitriol?
BTW, it’s 11aircraft carriers.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/a...
the rest of the world combined now has two more, you're slacking!!!BTW, it’s 11aircraft carriers.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/a...
Edited by Jimbeaux on Wednesday 26th February 01:58
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_car...
Might have to get on the 3D printer and churn a couple out! 
Carl_Manchester said:
Jimbeaux said:
Dem debate in South Carolina coming up tonight. Expect an all out assault On Sanders. Bloomberg has been raining money on the airwaves attacking Sanders. If Sanders makes it through Super Tuesday, (3 March), he will be on his way. If it’s close, the slug fest will get worse. 3 March is either were the moderates close in on Bernie or he pulls away.
After the 'debate' aka Lynch the old dude called Bernie, we still are none the clearer on the key policies, it is all hot air.I hope the next one is better.
unrepentant said:
JagLover said:
unrepentant said:
Companies already pay the lions share of premiums so the sensible way to fund single payer healthcare would be to put a tax on businesses equivalent to what they are currently spending on insurance and a commensurate tax on individuals.
You than remove insurance companies from the equation, they made around $25 billion in profit last year but their cost would be many times that. That is a big black hole of cost that delivers zero in the way of medical benefit. You then allow Medicare and Medicaid providers to negotiate with drug company's as the NHS and every other major service supplier does and that will reduce drug prices. You also throw away the chargemaster and have transparent, negotiated costs for medical services. That may mean that "non profit" hospitals have to pay their desk jockey CEO's a bit less than the $4 or 5 million they currently earn but that's show business.
Once you've done all that the cost of healthcare falls dramatically and becomes affordable as it is in all other western countries. If we have to pay a little extra tax then so what? The knowledge that a serious illness is not going to bankrupt you will help to cushion the blow.
Just as in the UK, those who wish to pay extra and have private care of the BUPA kind should still be free to do so.
It is entirely possible for the US health care system to cost less than it does. France for example spends 11% of GDP on healthcare and their healthcare system is very well regarded.You than remove insurance companies from the equation, they made around $25 billion in profit last year but their cost would be many times that. That is a big black hole of cost that delivers zero in the way of medical benefit. You then allow Medicare and Medicaid providers to negotiate with drug company's as the NHS and every other major service supplier does and that will reduce drug prices. You also throw away the chargemaster and have transparent, negotiated costs for medical services. That may mean that "non profit" hospitals have to pay their desk jockey CEO's a bit less than the $4 or 5 million they currently earn but that's show business.
Once you've done all that the cost of healthcare falls dramatically and becomes affordable as it is in all other western countries. If we have to pay a little extra tax then so what? The knowledge that a serious illness is not going to bankrupt you will help to cushion the blow.
Just as in the UK, those who wish to pay extra and have private care of the BUPA kind should still be free to do so.
The problem with many of the proposals coming as far as I can see is that they both extend coverage and do not have many measures to reduce existing costs. All they will be doing therefore is increasing costs but putting those costs on the taxpayer. Perhaps businesses will pay the difference, or likely not.
I had a small procedure last year. I was in theatre for 20 minutes. I had no clue what it would cost. The answer was $10k. I have decent employer provided healthcare through Anthem. My co-pay was $3,100! I had a scan two years ago. From walking in to the hospital to walking out was 15 minutes. Very efficient. My co-pay - $1800!
Now imagine you have a chronic illness or cancer. Even with decent coverage, even once your deductibles are met, you can still have crippling bills. I had a friend who died of brain cancer. He went back to work in a terrible state and a lot of pain during treatment because the medical bills were adding up, even with health insurance. He stopped just a couple of weeks before he died.
The system is broken and it needs radical and fundamental change .
I had to laugh when they were trying to have a go a Bernie about his Castro comments, even Biden tried it despite the fact that Obama said exactly (it's on youtube) the same thing but when Bernie says it it's because he's a communist 
Yet again apart from Warren & Sanders none of the others came out with any substantial policies actually that's giving them to much credit they had nothing.
Yet again apart from Warren & Sanders none of the others came out with any substantial policies actually that's giving them to much credit they had nothing.
ZX10R NIN said:
I had to laugh when they were trying to have a go a Bernie about his Castro comments, even Biden tried it despite the fact that Obama said exactly (it's on youtube) the same thing but when Bernie says it it's because he's a communist
Yet again apart from Warren & Sanders none of the others came out with any substantial policies actually that's giving them to much credit they had nothing.
If they do offer policies that differ from Bernie’s, it will be closer to Trump’s because moderate Dems favor Capitalism. They are afraid to not sound different enough. All IMO. Yet again apart from Warren & Sanders none of the others came out with any substantial policies actually that's giving them to much credit they had nothing.
ZX10R NIN said:
I had to laugh when they were trying to have a go a Bernie about his Castro comments, even Biden tried it despite the fact that Obama said exactly (it's on youtube) the same thing but when Bernie says it it's because he's a communist
Yet again apart from Warren & Sanders none of the others came out with any substantial policies actually that's giving them to much credit they had nothing.
ANYTHING That Bernie says is going to be twisted as being communist,socialist or worse. All bYet again apart from Warren & Sanders none of the others came out with any substantial policies actually that's giving them to much credit they had nothing.
ks! Saw today that he recorded a folk album years ago! The man is freaking awesome
And waaay better than Trump singing about chickens
kowalski655 said:
ANYTHING That Bernie says is going to be twisted as being communist,socialist or worse. All bks!
Saw today that he recorded a folk album years ago! The man is freaking awesome
And waaay better than Trump singing about chickens
All things are relative. Much of what he proposes is extreme left for us. He also wants government control of utilities which are currently run by companies or co-Ops and heavily regulated at the state levels by states’ Public Service Commissions. Most here won’t want that nationalized as power restoration after storms, etc. is efficient. ks! Saw today that he recorded a folk album years ago! The man is freaking awesome
And waaay better than Trump singing about chickens
_dobbo_ said:
The only thing more surprising to me than the fact that the current healthcare system in the US exists is the fact that people will aggressively defend it.
Because they are lied to by politicians who are in the pockets of the healthcare industry. The disinformation is colossal and continuous. They even had tv ads running during the primary debate.Trumps incoherent press conference is on now. He clearly has no f
king clue about coronavirus. He just said that a vaccine is close. An actual expert then spoke and said it will be at least a year.unrepentant said:
Because they are lied to by politicians who are in the pockets of the healthcare industry. The disinformation is colossal and continuous. They even had tv ads running during the primary debate.
Trumps incoherent press conference is on now. He clearly has no fking clue about coronavirus. He just said that a vaccine is close. An actual expert then spoke and said it will be at least a year.
A vaccine might be close, but it will have to spend several months on trial before being made available.Trumps incoherent press conference is on now. He clearly has no f
king clue about coronavirus. He just said that a vaccine is close. An actual expert then spoke and said it will be at least a year.Still a stupid thing to say.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff