The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, ActualCornHusker said:

I've already said that I'm not inherently opposed to universal healthcare.

OK...I'm not a supporter of Bernie.

But, it appears you say this but, oppose any candidate that supports it.  Meanwhile, healthcare is bankrupting our country.

[Landlord]

Just now, BigRedBuster said:

OK...I'm not a supporter of Bernie.

But, it appears you say this but, oppose any candidate that supports it.  Meanwhile, healthcare is bankrupting our country.

 

 

It's just an argument/conversation tactic to appear open minded and non-partisan while not having to actually do any work towards what you say you're not opposed to. 

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, Nebfanatic said:

Well you drive on roads provided by socialism and you are protected by a military provided by socialism. Are we ruled by tyranny?

What about farming, public schools, public power systems?

[ActualCornHusker]

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

OK...I'm not a supporter of Bernie.

But, it appears you say this but, oppose any candidate that supports it.  Meanwhile, healthcare is bankrupting our country.

 

1 minute ago, Landlord said:

 

 

It's just an argument/conversation tactic to appear open minded and non-partisan while not having to actually do any work towards what you say you're not opposed to. 

 

The conversation of healthcare is far more complicated than it's being posed by either side... Please see my latest post. There are a TON of questions to ask before you just jump into support of a certain policy, especially one of this magnitude. The biggest question might be: Do you trust the government to run such a complicated system? Given the evidence that medicare and social security are insolvent, the post office and DMV are horrendously run, and the hundreds (thousands) of examples of governmental abuse of taxpayer money, I apologize if it's not super appealing to me to hand MORE power and taxpayer money to the government...

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

The conversation of healthcare is far more complicated than it's being posed by either side... Please see my latest post. There are a TON of questions to ask before you just jump into support of a certain policy, especially one of this magnitude. The biggest question might be: Do you trust the government to run such a complicated system? Given the evidence that medicare and social security are insolvent, the post office and DMV are horrendously run, and the hundreds (thousands) of examples of governmental abuse of taxpayer money, I apologize if it's not super appealing to me to hand MORE power and taxpayer money to the government...

Sure.  As I've said, before (not in this conversation)....I'm open to an honest discussion about it.  Problem is, one side yells SOCIALISM every damn time it's brought up.  Meanwhile, they live very happily with other segments of our society being socialistic and don't even think about it.

 

It also helps in this that other countries have done the market analysis for us on this.  They have gone through some growing pains with it and pretty much every single one of the now has a better system that costs much less than we do.

We aren't asking to reinvent something the world has never seen.

[Ratt Mhule]

21 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

 

The conversation of healthcare is far more complicated than it's being posed by either side... Please see my latest post. There are a TON of questions to ask before you just jump into support of a certain policy, especially one of this magnitude. The biggest question might be: Do you trust the government to run such a complicated system? Given the evidence that medicare and social security are insolvent, the post office and DMV are horrendously run, and the hundreds (thousands) of examples of governmental abuse of taxpayer money, I apologize if it's not super appealing to me to hand MORE power and taxpayer money to the government...

I also dont trust for profit private insurance companies. 
 

If I had to choose one country to model a system after Id say Germany. Their citizens are required to purchase NON-profit private insurance. Im not an expert on their system but I believe they pay a premium to these insurance companies but the amount is controlled by the govt. These non-profit insurance companies pay people back if they keep up a healthy lifestyle. This would be the ideal system in my opinion. 
 

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/germany-s-health-care-system-model-u-s-n1024491

[TGHusker]

I know this will upset so many of you who were pulling for this candidate but Wayne Messam has dropped out of the presidential race.   I'm sure the top 4 candidates will scramble to try to earn the votes of Wayne's 10 supporters.

Wayne WHO

 

https://www.axios.com/wayne-messam-mayor-2020-dropout-democrat-miramar-497a9007-f2ad-464e-a0aa-634e13d29e58.html

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, TGHusker said:

I know this will upset so many of you who were pulling for this candidate but Wayne Messam has dropped out of the presidential race.  

Wayne WHO

 

https://www.axios.com/wayne-messam-mayor-2020-dropout-democrat-miramar-497a9007-f2ad-464e-a0aa-634e13d29e58.html

[ActualCornHusker]

13 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Sure.  As I've said, before (not in this conversation)....I'm open to an honest discussion about it.  Problem is, one side yells SOCIALISM every damn time it's brought up.  Meanwhile, they live very happily with other segments of our society being socialistic and don't even think about it.

 

It also helps in this that other countries have done the market analysis for us on this.  They have gone through some growing pains with it and pretty much every single one of the now has a better system that costs much less than we do.

We aren't asking to reinvent something the world has never seen.

 

I hear you. However, US companies are also responsible for a majority of the medical advancements through their investments in R&D. What happens to that segment of healthcare in this country when much of the profit incentive is taken away? Would you expect R&D to stagnate some?

 

[deedsker]

6 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

I hear you. However, US companies are also responsible for a majority of the medical advancements through their investments in R&D. What happens to that segment of healthcare in this country when much of the profit incentive is taken away? Would you expect R&D to stagnate some?

 

Money doesn't mean results.

 

 

Quote

Critics of drug price regulation argue that free market pricing strategies and higher prices in the United States are instrumental to innovation.^20,21 One might therefore expect the United States to be the most innovative given that it is the only country with a predominantly unregulated pharmaceutical market. However, US pharmaceutical innovation appeared to be roughly proportional to its national wealth and prescription drug spending. Our data suggest that the United States is important but not disproportionate in its contribution to pharmaceutical innovation.

 

Quote

We also found that the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Belgium, and a few other countries innovated proportionally more than their contribution to the global GDP...Japan, Spain, Australia, and Italy innovated less

 

Link

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, ActualCornHusker said:

I hear you. However, US companies are also responsible for a majority of the medical advancements through their investments in R&D. What happens to that segment of healthcare in this country when much of the profit incentive is taken away? Would you expect R&D to stagnate some?

Yeah....I used to try to sell that line of thinking.  Doesn't wash with me anymore.

 

There will still be investment in medical advancements.  A large part of that investment (23%)in these advancements are done at major Universities (most public) and funded already by the tax payer only to have companies take those patents and make billions off of them.  A little over half of the investment comes from industry (63%).  Those companies still will have motivation to invest.

 

Why?

 

One hell of a lot of the cost is associated with insurance companies that shield us away from the true expense of receiving healthcare and have absolutely no motivation to control those costs.  Other countries have been able to control this because, in a single payer plan that is public (without a profit motive) their motive is to control costs of an individual treatment.  Oh...and, with the insurance company, their motivation (once you have paid the premium) is to deny the treatment so they don't have to pay for it.  

 

Let me repeat....Every single one of those other countries have a better healthcare system that has better results than the US.  

 

This argument is propagated by the medical industry no differently than the gun industry propagates the idea that all Democrats want to take all our guns away so...then...everyone rushes out and buys guns.

 

The industry wants you to believe there won't be any more advancement.  That's a bunch of BS.

[BigRedBuster]

@ActualCornHusker are you actually saying that if Americans paid the same as these other countries, no new advancements would be made?

 

 

[teachercd]

Ummmm, aren't like all of India's good doctors...not in India?

[BigRedBuster]

Hmmmm....wonder if people in all those socialistic societies have to decide if they need to pay rent or pay for life saving drugs.

 

 

[NM11046]

17 hours ago, Frott Scost said:

So what does Platitude Pete have to say about this since, you know, its his home state. 
 

*crickets*

So I notice this has come up on a couple of your posts, and seems to be your nickname for him - how is that better than what Trump and the GOP does?  Can't we be better?