Jump to content


Trump and the Press


Recommended Posts


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Certainly the Democratic party would go a long way to not fall into the trap of the Republicans over the last 8 years - ie, reactionary platforms/positions instead of being proactive, however, you can't make the same kind of claim regarding manipulation of facts, misinformation, and bald-faced lies for any past President, imo. Maybe Nixon I guess.

 

No, you can make that claim of literally every president. Certainly to varying degrees, but that same statement and sentiment can be painted onto any past/current politician.

 

Obama would have us all believe that Obamacare is a good thing. Which is not true. Current dems (and maybe even a few Repubs) would want us all believe that an adjusted/improved/less-republican-tweeked version of Obamacare would be a good thing, which is not true. Obama & Bush would have us believe that the Auto and Bank bailouts were good things, not true imo.

 

Obama said that the Russians were a non-issue, not a major concern, and that "the Cold War is over, Mr. Romney" - not true imo. Bush had us believe that there were WMDs. Bill Clinton didn't inhale or have sexual relations. If I was older, or if I cared to look it up, I'm sure I could remember more falsehoods from any and every former president.

 

20 million people who can go to the doctor instead of suffering along or dying might disagree with you.

 

I'll never understand why people just point blank say "Obamacare is bad." As someone in healthcare, it just doesn't compute. Most folks in the field love it and want to keep it, although we admit it needs tweaked.

 

All things equal, what do you believe would be a better option?

 

And Moiriane is correct, IMO. Comparing the way Trump vomits on the truth every single day is a disservice to any of those other presidents, even if they did lie.

 

I would say it's the wrong course for the government to take. I would call it an unfair tax and an unconstitutional tax in a lot of ways.

 

I would say the intention behind Obamacare is nice and well intended, but that government insurance of any sort ignores the real issues.

 

Yes everyone should have fair and equal access to health care, but the better option of addressing unfair costs (including unfair insurance costs, which will surely continue to rise until things addressed properly) would be to fix the value of the dollar. If a healthy currency doesn't fix the unfair costs on its own, then the government should work to make sure pharmaceutical prices are fair ($600 epi-pen comes to mind), not insure them.

 

Although it's well intended, 50 years from now, people are going to look back and see that programs like Obamacare only helped to nosedive the economy even further, which drive costs and expenses up, which only continues to make health care unaffordable for everyone, not just the people on Obamacare, private health insurance prices will rise too.

 

 

What I don't understand is why people think insurance is necessary at all. If the cost of health care is fair and true, and if the value of the dollar is fair and true, then what purpose does insurance serve?..... I can understand doctors like it because it probably saves them from being screwed over on payments.... I have several doctors & therapists in my family and extended family, and although I've never heard them speak against it, I have yet to hear them speak highly of it either, so I'm sure that's situational as well.

 

All I know is that without insurance, my daughter's birth would have cost upwards of $100,000. So there's that, I guess.

 

It's funny that you bring that, as I almost did myself...

 

After both of my grandparents passed away, the kids went through all of their saved records. Of the 6 kids, they found the complete collection of 5 of their birth records, 3 girls and 2 boys.

 

My grandparents had the records from their first doctor visit after learning they were pregnant through a 2 day stay in the hospital, and heading home with baby in hand.

 

1950s, with no insurance, and 9 years between the first child and the last child... The grand total of the 3 girls was exactly $88. The two boys that they found records for were both exactly $94. The $6 difference was a circumcision.... I'm curious what the cost is of a circumcision these days? Has the quality of circumcision improved a great deal? Is it still not truly worth $6?

 

9 months of coverage for less than $100... That should be the goal of the government, not MORE insurance.

 

It speaks to the consistency of the economy, the dollar, and the quality of care over the course of a decade.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that the quality of care has improved, the number of desired doctor visits have increased, or that an increase in price is entirely unwarranted.... However, the inflation of pieces to the tune of $20k, $50k, or $100 absolutely needs to be addressed, and part of that problem is health insurance companies.

 

I don't have kids, so I can't speak from personal experience, that's just the way I see it.

 

I would imagine that lawyers have had a greater impact on the cost of healthcare since those kids were born than the value of the dollar.

 

 

I wish I could agree with you, but the inflated prices run pretty much across the board.... Health expenses, auto prices, home prices, the cost of milk, gas, school, you name it the prices have increased by huge margins. I won't disagree that there are other contributing factors from industry to industry or product to product, but I also don't think that those factors can be fairly and truly addressed until after the dollar is fixed.

 

What's broken about the dollar? How do we fix it?

 

EDIT - to expand on this, healthcare expenditures have risen at a greater rate than auto prices, home prices, the cost of milk, gas, school, etc.

 

For example, going back to 1960 (50-ish years), average costs have risen:

 

Homes 1960 $19,300 || 2010 $152,000 (687% increase)

Cars $3,233 || $31,252 (866%)

Milk $1.04/Gallon || $3.49/Gallon (235%)

Gas $.32/Gallon || $3.20/Gallon (900%)

Education $204/year || $16,546/year (8,010%)

Healthcare $147/year || $8,403/year (5,615%)

 

Here's a pretty good page explaining the hows & whys of increased healthcare costs in the past 50 years. I didn't see the value of the dollar cited as a major factor in this study.

 

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2015/11/23/national-health-spending-1960-2013/

Link to comment

What's broken about the dollar? How do we fix it?

What's "broken" about the dollar could be that:

 

1) the Federal Reserve prints money out of thin air,

 

2) we're borrowing billions annually from China, and

 

3) there is not enough tax revenue collected each year to cover our government's spending

 

Hence the 18 trillion (according to Forbes magazine) and counting national debt.

 

Maybe that's what's meant by the "broken dollar." As to how to fix it? :dunno

Link to comment

BigRedBuster,said, Well...there is a plan that would take insurance companies completely out of it but Republican's heads would explode.

 

​Could you talk about this more and explain, as best you can, how this plan would work? Because frankly, I have no idea how any plan could eliminate insurance companies. That almost seems too far-fetched to be even possible.

Simple.....

 

Single payer plan. Many countries have a fund that everyone pays into. This fund pays for healthcare for everyone. There isn't insurance companies vying for your business for no other reason than to put in place a barrier between you and health care and make a ton of money off of it.

 

Now, this program is not perfect. Yes, the costs are much lower. But, the service is not nearly as good as we have here in the US. You are also turning the healthcare industry over to a public program. (that's where the Republican's heads will explode)

 

I used to be 100% against this idea. I'm not ready to jump on board as a full supporter yet. But, when stepping back away from all the party rhetoric and crap.......this might be the best option to accomplish what people wan which is access to everyone and lower costs.

 

I find it funny that old people and a lot of veterans are Republican and oppose this vehemently.....even though they are on Vets benefits and Medicare.

Link to comment

Certainly the Democratic party would go a long way to not fall into the trap of the Republicans over the last 8 years - ie, reactionary platforms/positions instead of being proactive, however, you can't make the same kind of claim regarding manipulation of facts, misinformation, and bald-faced lies for any past President, imo. Maybe Nixon I guess.

 

No, you can make that claim of literally every president. Certainly to varying degrees, but that same statement and sentiment can be painted onto any past/current politician.

 

Obama would have us all believe that Obamacare is a good thing. Which is not true. Current dems (and maybe even a few Repubs) would want us all believe that an adjusted/improved/less-republican-tweeked version of Obamacare would be a good thing, which is not true. Obama & Bush would have us believe that the Auto and Bank bailouts were good things, not true imo.

 

Obama said that the Russians were a non-issue, not a major concern, and that "the Cold War is over, Mr. Romney" - not true imo. Bush had us believe that there were WMDs. Bill Clinton didn't inhale or have sexual relations. If I was older, or if I cared to look it up, I'm sure I could remember more falsehoods from any and every former president.

 

20 million people who can go to the doctor instead of suffering along or dying might disagree with you.

 

I'll never understand why people just point blank say "Obamacare is bad." As someone in healthcare, it just doesn't compute. Most folks in the field love it and want to keep it, although we admit it needs tweaked.

 

All things equal, what do you believe would be a better option?

 

And Moiriane is correct, IMO. Comparing the way Trump vomits on the truth every single day is a disservice to any of those other presidents, even if they did lie.

 

I would say it's the wrong course for the government to take. I would call it an unfair tax and an unconstitutional tax in a lot of ways.

 

I would say the intention behind Obamacare is nice and well intended, but that government insurance of any sort ignores the real issues.

 

Yes everyone should have fair and equal access to health care, but the better option of addressing unfair costs (including unfair insurance costs, which will surely continue to rise until things addressed properly) would be to fix the value of the dollar. If a healthy currency doesn't fix the unfair costs on its own, then the government should work to make sure pharmaceutical prices are fair ($600 epi-pen comes to mind), not insure them.

 

Although it's well intended, 50 years from now, people are going to look back and see that programs like Obamacare only helped to nosedive the economy even further, which drive costs and expenses up, which only continues to make health care unaffordable for everyone, not just the people on Obamacare, private health insurance prices will rise too.

 

 

What I don't understand is why people think insurance is necessary at all. If the cost of health care is fair and true, and if the value of the dollar is fair and true, then what purpose does insurance serve?..... I can understand doctors like it because it probably saves them from being screwed over on payments.... I have several doctors & therapists in my family and extended family, and although I've never heard them speak against it, I have yet to hear them speak highly of it either, so I'm sure that's situational as well.

 

All I know is that without insurance, my daughter's birth would have cost upwards of $100,000. So there's that, I guess.

 

It's funny that you bring that, as I almost did myself...

 

After both of my grandparents passed away, the kids went through all of their saved records. Of the 6 kids, they found the complete collection of 5 of their birth records, 3 girls and 2 boys.

 

My grandparents had the records from their first doctor visit after learning they were pregnant through a 2 day stay in the hospital, and heading home with baby in hand.

 

1950s, with no insurance, and 9 years between the first child and the last child... The grand total of the 3 girls was exactly $88. The two boys that they found records for were both exactly $94. The $6 difference was a circumcision.... I'm curious what the cost is of a circumcision these days? Has the quality of circumcision improved a great deal? Is it still not truly worth $6?

 

9 months of coverage for less than $100... That should be the goal of the government, not MORE insurance.

 

It speaks to the consistency of the economy, the dollar, and the quality of care over the course of a decade.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that the quality of care has improved, the number of desired doctor visits have increased, or that an increase in price is entirely unwarranted.... However, the inflation of pieces to the tune of $20k, $50k, or $100 absolutely needs to be addressed, and part of that problem is health insurance companies.

 

I don't have kids, so I can't speak from personal experience, that's just the way I see it.

 

I would imagine that lawyers have had a greater impact on the cost of healthcare since those kids were born than the value of the dollar.

 

 

I wish I could agree with you, but the inflated prices run pretty much across the board.... Health expenses, auto prices, home prices, the cost of milk, gas, school, you name it the prices have increased by huge margins. I won't disagree that there are other contributing factors from industry to industry or product to product, but I also don't think that those factors can be fairly and truly addressed until after the dollar is fixed.

 

What's broken about the dollar? How do we fix it?

 

 

 

The biggest issue in my mind is the fact that we aren't on a gold standard any longer. Its a fiat currency. The economy and the value of the dollar ebbs and flows with interest rates set by big banks, and by the amount of money in circulation - not by the actual value of the products, services, or currency.... There is an over abundance of currency in circulation, which decreases the value of each dollar, which then forces companies to increase prices to attain the same "value" that they would have received if a single dollar was still worth its weight in gold.

 

Of course this is my simplified view of the value of the dollar. If your interested, there is plenty of information and ideas out there, better than what I can share - just google the "history of the gold standard", "value of the dollar", "history of fiat currencies", "the history of the Federal Reserve", or anything in that vein. There is plenty of good information and history that could be applied to our current economy. Peter Schiff is a good source of information in regards to current economist worth listening to imo.

Link to comment

 

BigRedBuster,said, Well...there is a plan that would take insurance companies completely out of it but Republican's heads would explode.

 

​Could you talk about this more and explain, as best you can, how this plan would work? Because frankly, I have no idea how any plan could eliminate insurance companies. That almost seems too far-fetched to be even possible.

Simple.....

 

Single payer plan. Many countries have a fund that everyone pays into. This fund pays for healthcare for everyone. There isn't insurance companies vying for your business for no other reason than to put in place a barrier between you and health care and make a ton of money off of it.

 

Now, this program is not perfect. Yes, the costs are much lower. But, the service is not nearly as good as we have here in the US. You are also turning the healthcare industry over to a public program. (that's where the Republican's heads will explode)

 

I used to be 100% against this idea. I'm not ready to jump on board as a full supporter yet. But, when stepping back away from all the party rhetoric and crap.......this might be the best option to accomplish what people wan which is access to everyone and lower costs.

 

I find it funny that old people and a lot of veterans are Republican and oppose this vehemently.....even though they are on Vets benefits and Medicare.

 

 

I like this idea, even though it will never happen in a billion years. Insurance companies will put hundreds of millions of dollars in members of Congress's respective pockets to make sure nothing like this ever sees the light of day.

Link to comment

 

BigRedBuster,said, Well...there is a plan that would take insurance companies completely out of it but Republican's heads would explode.

 

​Could you talk about this more and explain, as best you can, how this plan would work? Because frankly, I have no idea how any plan could eliminate insurance companies. That almost seems too far-fetched to be even possible.

Simple.....

 

Single payer plan. Many countries have a fund that everyone pays into. This fund pays for healthcare for everyone. There isn't insurance companies vying for your business for no other reason than to put in place a barrier between you and health care and make a ton of money off of it.

 

Now, this program is not perfect. Yes, the costs are much lower. But, the service is not nearly as good as we have here in the US. You are also turning the healthcare industry over to a public program. (that's where the Republican's heads will explode)

 

I used to be 100% against this idea. I'm not ready to jump on board as a full supporter yet. But, when stepping back away from all the party rhetoric and crap.......this might be the best option to accomplish what people wan which is access to everyone and lower costs.

 

I find it funny that old people and a lot of veterans are Republican and oppose this vehemently.....even though they are on Vets benefits and Medicare.

 

 

 

I can't speak to what every country like this does, but I was having a conversation the other day about Sweden who does something like this.... One of the biggest reasons that they can sustain National/Gov healthcare is because you have to be a Swiss Citizen to qualify (which is even tougher than gaining US citizenship apparently). You literally don't qualify unless you are born in that country. Most spouses who marry into a Swiss family never receive citizenship, and thus never qualify.... They also have a much much much smaller population than the US.... Simply put, they can sustain because they have a smaller and more consistent number of people receiving care, which likely isn't possible in the US, esp if we want to continue to grant citizenship to whoever wants in.

Link to comment

The biggest issue in my mind is the fact that we aren't on a gold standard any longer. Its a fiat currency. The economy and the value of the dollar ebbs and flows with interest rates set by big banks, and by the amount of money in circulation - not by the actual value of the products, services, or currency.... There is an over abundance of currency in circulation, which decreases the value of each dollar, which then forces companies to increase prices to attain the same "value" that they would have received if the dollar was still worth its weight in gold.

 

Of course this is my simplified view of the value of the dollar. If your interested, there is plenty of information and ideas out there, better than what I can share - just google the "history of the gold standard", "value of the dollar", "history of fiat currencies", "the history of the Federal Reserve", or anything in that vein. There is plenty of good information and history that could be applied to our current economy. Peter Schiff is a good source of information in regards to current economist worth listening to imo.

How would going back to a gold standard lower healthcare costs? Here's a few sources explaining, in their terms, why healthcare costs have risen so dramatically. None of them cite the dollar or anything related to the gold standard.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/12/news/economy/health-care-costs/

https://www.zanebenefits.com/blog/8-reasons-health-insurance-costs-continue-to-rise

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/us/health-insurance-affordable-care-act.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/why-does-health-care-cost-so-much-in-america-ask-harvards-david-cutler/

http://fortune.com/2016/06/21/health-care-rising-costs/

https://www.thebalance.com/causes-of-rising-healthcare-costs-4064878

https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/why-health-care-costs-too-much

Link to comment

 

The biggest issue in my mind is the fact that we aren't on a gold standard any longer. Its a fiat currency. The economy and the value of the dollar ebbs and flows with interest rates set by big banks, and by the amount of money in circulation - not by the actual value of the products, services, or currency.... There is an over abundance of currency in circulation, which decreases the value of each dollar, which then forces companies to increase prices to attain the same "value" that they would have received if the dollar was still worth its weight in gold.

 

Of course this is my simplified view of the value of the dollar. If your interested, there is plenty of information and ideas out there, better than what I can share - just google the "history of the gold standard", "value of the dollar", "history of fiat currencies", "the history of the Federal Reserve", or anything in that vein. There is plenty of good information and history that could be applied to our current economy. Peter Schiff is a good source of information in regards to current economist worth listening to imo.

How would going back to a gold standard lower healthcare costs? Here's a few sources explaining, in their terms, why healthcare costs have risen so dramatically. None of them cite the dollar or anything related to the gold standard.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/12/news/economy/health-care-costs/

https://www.zanebenefits.com/blog/8-reasons-health-insurance-costs-continue-to-rise

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/us/health-insurance-affordable-care-act.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/why-does-health-care-cost-so-much-in-america-ask-harvards-david-cutler/

http://fortune.com/2016/06/21/health-care-rising-costs/

https://www.thebalance.com/causes-of-rising-healthcare-costs-4064878

https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/why-health-care-costs-too-much

 

 

 

The gold standard would improve the value of the dollar, which would effect/improve costs in every industry, not just the health industry. The goal of going back to a gold standard would be to fix the economy as a whole, not just the health industry specifically.

 

However, by having a healthy currency, then the cost of R&D, production & shipping costs of pharmaceuticals, prices of doctors visits, ect, ect, would all eventually balance out to their true respective values.... Being on the gold standard would mean that the value of the money in you bank account would go further - you would get more bang for you buck. Prices across the board would eventually drop to true and fair values, including the expenses of health care.

Link to comment

There's no economic support for that theory. Where are you hearing this? It sounds like you're talking about basic inflation, not specific to the healthcare industry, which has its own issues unrelated to inflation.

 

Did you read any of the links I posted? They explain, beyond inflationary factors, why costs have risen in the healthcare industry. It's not simply a matter of inflation.

Link to comment

I have googled it. That's why I'm asking where you're getting that. You're not talking specifics about healthcare, but general economic theories.

 

There are an equal number of sources that support taking currency off the gold standard. But that's not what we're talking about here.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...