http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/27/why ... rty-exist/
I read an article, which of course I can't find now, that graded out the parties on votes and positions, and about 80% of the purported Republicans generally lined up with the positions taken by the Dems. I think that's pretty evident in how things are still being done even with GOP in positions of leadership. Say what you will about Ted Cruz, but he was pretty well right on the money in his assessment of Mitch McConnell.
At this point I'm rooting for a Trump-Sanders election if only for the sheer schadenfreude and entertainment value of the whole thing. When you look at positions, Hilary and, oh, say, Jeb, are almost identical ideologically. It's a farce.
Why does the Republican party exist?
Re: Why does the Republican party exist?
Oh God... Trump-Sanders would be a nightmare.
Go Suns!
Og Snus!
Og Snus!
Re: Why does the Republican party exist?
You're talking Trump vs Sanders, right Dan?
Because never in a million years would you see the two pair up.
A Plutocrat and a Socialist, never the twain shall meet...
But I hope to everything I hold holy that the two square off in a debate format.
Trump has no plans, platform, or policies. He keeps saying he'll figure everything out.
Sanders would run rings around him logically. It would be interesting to see if Trump supporters would listen to common sense for a change and abandon their xenophobic bigotry... I know, not bloody likely, but I can dream, can't I?
Because never in a million years would you see the two pair up.
A Plutocrat and a Socialist, never the twain shall meet...
But I hope to everything I hold holy that the two square off in a debate format.
Trump has no plans, platform, or policies. He keeps saying he'll figure everything out.
Sanders would run rings around him logically. It would be interesting to see if Trump supporters would listen to common sense for a change and abandon their xenophobic bigotry... I know, not bloody likely, but I can dream, can't I?
Forcing me to conform to your beliefs is an exercise in futility.
You deal with you, because you can't stop me from being me.
You deal with you, because you can't stop me from being me.
Re: Why does the Republican party exist?
I'm not sure that Clinton and Jeb are that similar either. Hilary is starting to mimic a lot of the key talking points that Sanders and so many of us really feels passionate about. Jeb keeps talking craziness like longer working hours than the 40 hour work week and doing away with overtime pay. He's a bit more of a tool of the oligarchy than Hilary is, at least from their current stated ideologies.
Forcing me to conform to your beliefs is an exercise in futility.
You deal with you, because you can't stop me from being me.
You deal with you, because you can't stop me from being me.
Re: Why does the Republican party exist?
Trump vs. Sanders.
As far as Jeb v. Clinton, meh, they're both lame. There's some slight differences in position but I don't feel they'd govern all that differently. He's more progressive than HW and W IMO.
http://theweek.com/speedreads/454351/wa ... -bush-2016
Jeb keeps talking craziness like longer working hours than the 40 hour work week and doing away with overtime pay. He's a bit more of a tool of the oligarchy than Hilary is, at least from their current stated ideologies.
Let me put this into context so you don't think I'm a shill.
If Jeb is the GOP candidate, I will not be voting for him. If he's still in the primaries by the time my state rolls around, I will be voting for one of his opponents. But the hubbub about the 40-hour comment thing was nonsensical. He didn't express it well, but he had a point. Far too many full-time jobs have been lost and replaced with part-time jobs (or not at all) in the last decade. The unemployment is going down due to lower worker participation, not due to job growth.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... king-work/
As regards Hillary . . . meh. But I repeat myself.
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=230453
I think Rand Paul is the best choice but he doesn't seem interested in actually campaigning, so I'm not sure how far he's going to get.
As far as Jeb v. Clinton, meh, they're both lame. There's some slight differences in position but I don't feel they'd govern all that differently. He's more progressive than HW and W IMO.
http://theweek.com/speedreads/454351/wa ... -bush-2016
Jeb keeps talking craziness like longer working hours than the 40 hour work week and doing away with overtime pay. He's a bit more of a tool of the oligarchy than Hilary is, at least from their current stated ideologies.
Let me put this into context so you don't think I'm a shill.
If Jeb is the GOP candidate, I will not be voting for him. If he's still in the primaries by the time my state rolls around, I will be voting for one of his opponents. But the hubbub about the 40-hour comment thing was nonsensical. He didn't express it well, but he had a point. Far too many full-time jobs have been lost and replaced with part-time jobs (or not at all) in the last decade. The unemployment is going down due to lower worker participation, not due to job growth.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... king-work/
As regards Hillary . . . meh. But I repeat myself.
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=230453
I think Rand Paul is the best choice but he doesn't seem interested in actually campaigning, so I'm not sure how far he's going to get.
Re: Why does the Republican party exist?
Dan, I really try to be beyond attacking people for their political beliefs. Even if someone treats their party like it was their favorite sports team, and will only consider voting for a person if he or she belongs to their personal favorite party, I'm not going to even consider a person to be a shill. You have a right to vote based on whatever belief you want to have. Lincoln once said, "The best way to kill your enemy is to make him your friend." To me that means reasoning with people instead of inflammatory invalidation.
I'm not a huge fan of Hilary, I know we can do better. But I have serious issues with pretty much all of the GOP candidates. On the Right, Kasich is probably the one I agree with most, except he is pro-war and wants to increase spending in the Middle-East, as does everyone else on the Right, including Rand Paul.
The country is getting killed by debt caused by the stupid, catastrophic war against "terrorism." Tax credits/cuts/benefits are also causing the debt to skyrocket. The ONLY person I see willing to speak honestly and address these two MAJOR issues is Bernie Sanders.
Obama has done a lot of things I disagree with, but cutting the deficit by two-thirds, and being the lowest spending President since Eisenhower, I will say has me exceptionally pleased, but a lot more must be done. But what do people want to focus on? Gays, guns, girls (rights), and illegals.
It would make me happy if the voters put things in their proper perspective and voted for a person who would actually make effective changes for the people of this country. Bernie would bring back things like Glass-Steagall, Dodd-Frank, Keynesian economics, and other effective measures that used to be bipartisan, before Obama became President and Republicans decided making this country fail was their number one priority.
What sucks is I can't attack Obama on issues I don't happen to agree with, because Republicans have acted like the FOX that cried wolf over every little thing that has occurred. When every thing the Right disagrees with is another "Whitewater," it makes it impossible to actually take it seriously when the President actually does overstep his boundaries. The Right has smokescreened Democrats themselves with their constant naysaying. Their wasted efforts at antagonism has been to the detriment of their stated goal, and to anyone else's for that matter. But I digress, as this is counterproductive to any real progress, and it doesn't matter anyway as Obama has little over a year left anyway.
It's still so early that I can still believe that people might wake up and give Bernie a chance. I want to believe that people will grow tired of the Trump sideshow at some point. Trump is sort of like a white Herman Cain on steroids. If people got tired of that shit then Trump will burn out even faster.
I'm not a huge fan of Hilary, I know we can do better. But I have serious issues with pretty much all of the GOP candidates. On the Right, Kasich is probably the one I agree with most, except he is pro-war and wants to increase spending in the Middle-East, as does everyone else on the Right, including Rand Paul.
The country is getting killed by debt caused by the stupid, catastrophic war against "terrorism." Tax credits/cuts/benefits are also causing the debt to skyrocket. The ONLY person I see willing to speak honestly and address these two MAJOR issues is Bernie Sanders.
Obama has done a lot of things I disagree with, but cutting the deficit by two-thirds, and being the lowest spending President since Eisenhower, I will say has me exceptionally pleased, but a lot more must be done. But what do people want to focus on? Gays, guns, girls (rights), and illegals.
It would make me happy if the voters put things in their proper perspective and voted for a person who would actually make effective changes for the people of this country. Bernie would bring back things like Glass-Steagall, Dodd-Frank, Keynesian economics, and other effective measures that used to be bipartisan, before Obama became President and Republicans decided making this country fail was their number one priority.
What sucks is I can't attack Obama on issues I don't happen to agree with, because Republicans have acted like the FOX that cried wolf over every little thing that has occurred. When every thing the Right disagrees with is another "Whitewater," it makes it impossible to actually take it seriously when the President actually does overstep his boundaries. The Right has smokescreened Democrats themselves with their constant naysaying. Their wasted efforts at antagonism has been to the detriment of their stated goal, and to anyone else's for that matter. But I digress, as this is counterproductive to any real progress, and it doesn't matter anyway as Obama has little over a year left anyway.
It's still so early that I can still believe that people might wake up and give Bernie a chance. I want to believe that people will grow tired of the Trump sideshow at some point. Trump is sort of like a white Herman Cain on steroids. If people got tired of that shit then Trump will burn out even faster.
Forcing me to conform to your beliefs is an exercise in futility.
You deal with you, because you can't stop me from being me.
You deal with you, because you can't stop me from being me.
Re: Why does the Republican party exist?
Honestly, unless the GOP field decides to grow a pair, I think Sanders is the next President unless Biden decides to run.
Obama has done a lot of things I disagree with, but cutting the deficit by two-thirds, and being the lowest spending President since Eisenhower, I will say has me exceptionally pleased, but a lot more must be done.
Yeah . . . no. He's (more specifically: Pelosi and the Dem House) spent money like a drunken Bush.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrar ... d-history/
It would make me happy if the voters put things in their proper perspective and voted for a person who would actually make effective changes for the people of this country. Bernie would bring back things like Glass-Steagall, Dodd-Frank, Keynesian economics, and other effective measures that used to be bipartisan, before Obama became President
Glass-Steagall: agree.
Dodd-Frank: is . . . still law?
Keynesian econ: That's been Obama's policy, why hasn't it worked? I think he slept through the part of econ where they fully discussed it. Keynes believed in using government surpluses in lean times to stimulate the economy; he did not believe in using debt to finance it.
Karl Denninger at Market Ticker has been banging the drum for a long time that the medical field needs to subject to the Sherman and Clayton acts. One example he frequently cites is the cost of rattlesnake anti-venom in the United States compared to Mexico (over 20x the price in the US). Fixing the inflation in the medical system would pretty much fix deficit spending overnight as Medicare and Medicaid is nearly a third of the overall budget.
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=230399
(Read the comments as well, they expound greatly and provide additional examples. One of my favorite sites on the 'net.)
Perfect example of how the medical system is screwed up. My wife had surgery. The lead physician was in-network, so our insurance picked up most of his bill ($6,300; there's a reason I remember it exactly coming up.)
One of his new partners assisted and observed the surgery. The SOB's double-billed us. Yes, we got an additional charge of $6,300 for a doctor we never met, because he stood there and helped the other doctor. And, because he was new, he was not in network. So guess who was on the hook for the entire amount? Yuuuuup. Insurance company could do nothing for me, doctor's office dug their heels in and refused to do anything, either. I mentioned to them that if I bid out for an IT job, then decided I needed help, no one in their right mind would pay me more because I wasn't competent enough to finish the job in my own. If they'd given us an option beforehand, we'd have declined the likely charge, but that's just how the racket works, isn't it? You don't worry about being charged $500 for a Tylenol when your head hurts.
Obama has done a lot of things I disagree with, but cutting the deficit by two-thirds, and being the lowest spending President since Eisenhower, I will say has me exceptionally pleased, but a lot more must be done.
Yeah . . . no. He's (more specifically: Pelosi and the Dem House) spent money like a drunken Bush.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrar ... d-history/
It would make me happy if the voters put things in their proper perspective and voted for a person who would actually make effective changes for the people of this country. Bernie would bring back things like Glass-Steagall, Dodd-Frank, Keynesian economics, and other effective measures that used to be bipartisan, before Obama became President
Glass-Steagall: agree.
Dodd-Frank: is . . . still law?
Keynesian econ: That's been Obama's policy, why hasn't it worked? I think he slept through the part of econ where they fully discussed it. Keynes believed in using government surpluses in lean times to stimulate the economy; he did not believe in using debt to finance it.
Karl Denninger at Market Ticker has been banging the drum for a long time that the medical field needs to subject to the Sherman and Clayton acts. One example he frequently cites is the cost of rattlesnake anti-venom in the United States compared to Mexico (over 20x the price in the US). Fixing the inflation in the medical system would pretty much fix deficit spending overnight as Medicare and Medicaid is nearly a third of the overall budget.
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=230399
(Read the comments as well, they expound greatly and provide additional examples. One of my favorite sites on the 'net.)
Perfect example of how the medical system is screwed up. My wife had surgery. The lead physician was in-network, so our insurance picked up most of his bill ($6,300; there's a reason I remember it exactly coming up.)
One of his new partners assisted and observed the surgery. The SOB's double-billed us. Yes, we got an additional charge of $6,300 for a doctor we never met, because he stood there and helped the other doctor. And, because he was new, he was not in network. So guess who was on the hook for the entire amount? Yuuuuup. Insurance company could do nothing for me, doctor's office dug their heels in and refused to do anything, either. I mentioned to them that if I bid out for an IT job, then decided I needed help, no one in their right mind would pay me more because I wasn't competent enough to finish the job in my own. If they'd given us an option beforehand, we'd have declined the likely charge, but that's just how the racket works, isn't it? You don't worry about being charged $500 for a Tylenol when your head hurts.
Re: Why does the Republican party exist?
God, I hope you're right and Sanders. I don't want Hilary or anyone from the GOP in there.
My problem with the Peter Ferarra commentary is that it attempts to disprove Rick Ungar, and not the CBO report. Ungar was just relaying what the Congressional Budget Office report stated. Kind of like shooting the messenger instead of who is sending the message.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42905
This report, by a bipartisan Government Agency, also seems to have the support of enough economist groups to support it's validity. I don't see many current articles following up on this story either, this is the most resent one I've seen.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/27/news/ec ... ing-obama/
I'd like to see a more current report, to be honest, but I have not seen anything that seriously disputes the CBO's claims.
True on Dodd-Frank, I guess technically it is still law (for now), but it lacks bipartisan support, and it is constantly being ignored, weeded, and watered down. More could and should be done.
Why hasn't Keynes stratagems worked? Well, you'd have to implement them first. Congress has no support for spending on infrastructure or education, and the President does need to do more to press the issue.
On the medical system, again, more needs to be done. Eliminating insurance completely sounds kind of radical.
Sorry about your troubles with your wife man, that is pretty shitty. Nobody seems to be offering up any real answers, even though other countries seem to be able to make their systems work. It's probably time to start emulating what the most successful countries do, and real reform and regulation is probably in order.
My biggest complaint with ACA is that Obama let the pharmaceutical companies get away with murder. It was said that the hope was that Republicans would eventually help to reform the system, but they've wasted all their time trying to repeal the whole thing. I would have been happy if everyone would have been put on Medicare and start from there, but that didn't happen.
A lot of people share the cynical belief that Republicans can't afford to allow things they said would definitely fail like ACA to succeed. It has all become a political war, and that's wrong. People are dying, suffering, and still going broke, and it all has to do with politics. Really seems like there could be a better way to attain power in the political theater. People are going to look back on these days as barbarism.
My problem with the Peter Ferarra commentary is that it attempts to disprove Rick Ungar, and not the CBO report. Ungar was just relaying what the Congressional Budget Office report stated. Kind of like shooting the messenger instead of who is sending the message.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42905
This report, by a bipartisan Government Agency, also seems to have the support of enough economist groups to support it's validity. I don't see many current articles following up on this story either, this is the most resent one I've seen.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/27/news/ec ... ing-obama/
I'd like to see a more current report, to be honest, but I have not seen anything that seriously disputes the CBO's claims.
True on Dodd-Frank, I guess technically it is still law (for now), but it lacks bipartisan support, and it is constantly being ignored, weeded, and watered down. More could and should be done.
Why hasn't Keynes stratagems worked? Well, you'd have to implement them first. Congress has no support for spending on infrastructure or education, and the President does need to do more to press the issue.
On the medical system, again, more needs to be done. Eliminating insurance completely sounds kind of radical.
Sorry about your troubles with your wife man, that is pretty shitty. Nobody seems to be offering up any real answers, even though other countries seem to be able to make their systems work. It's probably time to start emulating what the most successful countries do, and real reform and regulation is probably in order.
My biggest complaint with ACA is that Obama let the pharmaceutical companies get away with murder. It was said that the hope was that Republicans would eventually help to reform the system, but they've wasted all their time trying to repeal the whole thing. I would have been happy if everyone would have been put on Medicare and start from there, but that didn't happen.
A lot of people share the cynical belief that Republicans can't afford to allow things they said would definitely fail like ACA to succeed. It has all become a political war, and that's wrong. People are dying, suffering, and still going broke, and it all has to do with politics. Really seems like there could be a better way to attain power in the political theater. People are going to look back on these days as barbarism.
Forcing me to conform to your beliefs is an exercise in futility.
You deal with you, because you can't stop me from being me.
You deal with you, because you can't stop me from being me.
Re: Why does the Republican party exist?
I have to agree that most of the screwing of Americans in healthcare is because of the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies.
Re: Why does the Republican party exist?
"Eliminating insurance completely sounds kind of radical."
I think the thinking there is that market pressure would push pricing down. The Surgery Center of Oklahoma is a good example. Most of their business is cash, and they give you the price ahead of time. There's no reason in a sane world why an MRI should cost thousands of dollars. Every other piece of technology drifts downward in price in unregulated industries.
http://www.surgerycenterok.com/
I read an article, will try to find it, where someone showed that you could take a medical vacation to Japan and have heart surgery there and it would be half the price or less of what it would be in the US even including airfare and hotel.
Has Sanders been talking about this sort of thing at all? I honestly feel like if he started hammering this drum and started talking about putting some of the banksters from Wall Street in jail he'd win in a landslide. I believe he's addressed the latter to some extent. The fact that John Corzine isn't spending the rest of his life in a Federal PMITA prison is insane. (http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/20 ... al-report/)
I think the thinking there is that market pressure would push pricing down. The Surgery Center of Oklahoma is a good example. Most of their business is cash, and they give you the price ahead of time. There's no reason in a sane world why an MRI should cost thousands of dollars. Every other piece of technology drifts downward in price in unregulated industries.
http://www.surgerycenterok.com/
I read an article, will try to find it, where someone showed that you could take a medical vacation to Japan and have heart surgery there and it would be half the price or less of what it would be in the US even including airfare and hotel.
Has Sanders been talking about this sort of thing at all? I honestly feel like if he started hammering this drum and started talking about putting some of the banksters from Wall Street in jail he'd win in a landslide. I believe he's addressed the latter to some extent. The fact that John Corzine isn't spending the rest of his life in a Federal PMITA prison is insane. (http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/20 ... al-report/)
Re: Why does the Republican party exist?
An MRI can cost millions of dollars not to mention the software updates, maintenance, repair, technician time for getting the images, radiologists time for reviewing and providing their diagnosis. Sure, once you are doing 10 in an 8 hour shift, every day for a year you can pay off the machine, but it is very expensive. It is orders of magnitude cheaper to walk in with a broken arm and have it set by a doc in the ER.
Re: Why does the Republican party exist?
Yes, but as you say, it's a sunk cost. My wife worked for an orthopedic office that put in an MRI about 9 years ago, the same machine is still there. Sure, there are ongoing costs but at a certain point it's a depreciating asset. Average cost for an MRI, as best I can tell, is $2600. Figuring 10 a day (which I think is possibly low), that's 50 a week, times 52 weeks a year, is 2600 MRIs a year. That's $6.8 million in just the first year. The MRI machine at my wife's old work, using those numbers, has been good for over 60 million bucks! That's not a bad investment if you assume their initial outlay was in the realm of 2-3 million; MRI techs around here make about 50-60K IIRC.
I'll need to ask my wife but I also believe the radiologist consult is a different charge than the actual fee for the MRI.
http://time.com/money/2995166/why-does- ... t-so-much/
I'll need to ask my wife but I also believe the radiologist consult is a different charge than the actual fee for the MRI.
http://time.com/money/2995166/why-does- ... t-so-much/
Re: Why does the Republican party exist?
Ladmo, I haven't spoke to you in ages. From all our history here over the years I decided to avoid all interaction with you to avoid confrontations. I have been lurking a little and I have to say that I have been very impressed with your demeanor here since you have come back. I don't know what has changed in your life, but whatever it is I approve and am happy for you.
I saw you and Dan talking politics and expected the worst outcome since you guys are from opposite sides, but was shocked that you guys have both been totally respectful towards each other and I can't tell you both how impressed I am.
I saw you and Dan talking politics and expected the worst outcome since you guys are from opposite sides, but was shocked that you guys have both been totally respectful towards each other and I can't tell you both how impressed I am.
Re: Why does the Republican party exist?
That I don't doubt at all. I don't think Americans are all that different from one another. We all generally want the same things and I think the majority of us are moderates. The two parties/media have tried real hard to separate us into two groups that hate each other competing for our votes.I read an article, which of course I can't find now, that graded out the parties on votes and positions, and about 80% of the purported Republicans generally lined up with the positions taken by the Dems.
I think Rand Paul is the best choice but he doesn't seem interested in actually campaigning, so I'm not sure how far he's going to get.
I just read an article on Rand Paul at Politico that explains why they think he has fallen off.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... b8UTGDXnOY
Health care. We pay a lot more for health care services in this country than they do everywhere else. There has to be a reason for it and it has been happening long before Obamacare. I wish I could say for certain what makes our prices so much higher than the rest of the world, but I don't really know and from what I have been reading the past several years nobody else really knows for sure either. It's the malpractice suits or the insurance companies gouging us or the drug companies charging Americans twice what Canadians pay for the same drugs. It's the uninsured flooding our emergency rooms and not paying anything forcing everybody else prices to soar. Whatever it is somebody needs to look into it. Instead we get Benghazi investigations and Obamacare repeal votes that are useless.If politicians really cared about Americans they would make these things a priority instead of the dumb ass political BS.
“There is no such thing as a legitimate price for anything in health care,” says George Halvorson, former chairman of Kaiser Permanente, the giant health maintenance organization based in California. “Prices are made up depending on who the payer is.”
Re: Why does the Republican party exist?
That sure sounds awful superior of you, dude. But don't let that take make you hate me.Nodack wrote:Ladmo, I haven't spoke to you in ages. From all our history here over the years I decided to avoid all interaction with you to avoid confrontations. I have been lurking a little and I have to say that I have been very impressed with your demeanor here since you have come back. I don't know what has changed in your life, but whatever it is I approve and am happy for you.
I saw you and Dan talking politics and expected the worst outcome since you guys are from opposite sides, but was shocked that you guys have both been totally respectful towards each other and I can't tell you both how impressed I am.
I haven't changed, I just never backed down from all of everyone's name-calling and insults. You all piled on me, again and again, and the truth is you piled on me even when I stopped coming around, based on the searches I have done on the site. Search "Ladmo," the comments about me are less then kind.
You tried to make me into some Culburn Castelburry boogey man, and many of you enjoyed doing it. Whatever... I really don't give a fuck, and I never hesitated to let you know that I didn't give a fuck what you all think of me. I'm the same dude, I just stayed away long enough for people to back the fuck off from your judgmental, baseless, preemptive attacks against my character.
If you make a person to behave in a defensive manner every time he says anything, well then guess what? You ain't gonna' want to put up with it when he responds naturally. If people go around talking about how much they enjoy trying to upset a person, or that their goal is to get that person banned, well then wonder upon wonders, you will succeed in your goal.
I ain't tryin' ta' get into your shit man, but there are two sides to every story. Yeah, I like to have fun, and I like to exaggerate with "flowery language," because usually the antithesis of that is boring as hell.
One of my main complaints about this place is the dulling down by censorship. What made this place fun initially is that it was the wild, wild, west, we didn't have rules, and sometimes stupid people got hurt. And if you actually let words hurt you, you're some kind of moron. They're just fucking words, stream of consciousness, a creative outlet, and people acted like they were being tortured. I never gave a fuck that people treated me like shit, why would I? Who da' fuck are you ta' me? So why did everyone else let themselves get so bent out of shape over words typed into a screen?
Listen, you don't want me here, fine. I don't gotta' come around. I neither need your support nor your negativity. I just am, dude. If you need me to be the bad guy, go for it, I don't care. I'm not here to tear ya' down, I'm really not trying to hurt anybody, and I doubt you could produce a cruel thing I've ever said. I'm just a casual observer who says what he says because it is the take that he found most amusing. That's it.
Forcing me to conform to your beliefs is an exercise in futility.
You deal with you, because you can't stop me from being me.
You deal with you, because you can't stop me from being me.
Re: Why does the Republican party exist?
I really wasn't trying to get into this, so let's not start this shit again...
Forcing me to conform to your beliefs is an exercise in futility.
You deal with you, because you can't stop me from being me.
You deal with you, because you can't stop me from being me.
Re: Why does the Republican party exist?
Back to the topic, I commend you guys for your extensive knowledge and experiences concerning the Medical Care system. This is an area where I hear a lot of different stories from a lot of different points of view. I am really in a fog about all of it, I couldn't be more out of my element. I think a lot of people are in the same boat. I know a lot of people who sound like conspiracy theorists when this discussion comes into play. It is pretty well broken.
My opinion is pretty simple, I don't think it is morally correct for Health Care to be corrupted by Capitalism. Capitalism is fine, in its place, but when it comes to things like people's health and politics, there needs to be stronger barriers. Might sound like Socialism but I don't care. Might sound overly simplistic, and it is admittedly so, but I admit ignorance in this area. I don't have answer one for where to begin.
My opinion is pretty simple, I don't think it is morally correct for Health Care to be corrupted by Capitalism. Capitalism is fine, in its place, but when it comes to things like people's health and politics, there needs to be stronger barriers. Might sound like Socialism but I don't care. Might sound overly simplistic, and it is admittedly so, but I admit ignorance in this area. I don't have answer one for where to begin.
Forcing me to conform to your beliefs is an exercise in futility.
You deal with you, because you can't stop me from being me.
You deal with you, because you can't stop me from being me.
Re: Why does the Republican party exist?
I understand why you are saying what you are saying, but as someone that sees it every day, we wouldn't the outstanding advancements and innovation in the healthcare if there wasn't money to be made. We wouldn't have magentic bone regenerators; hell, we probably wouldn't even have decent bone screws. We would have splints. And we would never have got around to joint replacements, and from things that I have read, it is one of the leading indicators for people staying active into their 70s and 80s (and beyond).Ladmo wrote:Back to the topic, I commend you guys for your extensive knowledge and experiences concerning the Medical Care system. This is an area where I hear a lot of different stories from a lot of different points of view. I am really in a fog about all of it, I couldn't be more out of my element. I think a lot of people are in the same boat. I know a lot of people who sound like conspiracy theorists when this discussion comes into play. It is pretty well broken.
My opinion is pretty simple, I don't think it is morally correct for Health Care to be corrupted by Capitalism. Capitalism is fine, in its place, but when it comes to things like people's health and politics, there needs to be stronger barriers. Might sound like Socialism but I don't care. Might sound overly simplistic, and it is admittedly so, but I admit ignorance in this area. I don't have answer one for where to begin.
Re: Why does the Republican party exist?
The problem is actually the lack of capitalism. The price has been driven up by effective monopolies and a failure to enforce existing laws on the industry.
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=230320
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=230320