Is it now between Bernie and Bloomberg?

[Docscurlock]

Doc, you forgot free college education for all, and the write-off of another $1.5T in student loans.

I just didn't get that far yet

Sponsored

 

[Docscurlock]

What do I know? I'm just a dumbass hick from flyover country. I can't be trusted to take care of myself. I'm just not smart enough; even though I've been employed since I was 14, put myself and my kids through college on my own dime, pay all of my bills on time, try to contribute 5% of my annual gross income to charity, and practice my faith in my God to the best of my ablilty (yes I know, I can always do better here and I keep trying).

.

You are exactly the kind of person the left hates. You should quit being responsible, send your kids to re education camps so they can be good little communists, denounce God, become dependent on .gov, start some vices like drugs or alcoholism, get into a .gov program, leave your wife so she can go on welfare along with your kids and you will fit in perfectly.

 

[watisthis]

this is the drivel from his website. If it sounds corny don't blame me. These are the policies that he says he will implement as President. Luckily for us, 1. He will never be president and 2. He could never implement any of this stuff.


None of the policies he supports make any sense, the guy is a lunatic. He has spent 5x all the money in the world for all his socialist dreams. Unfortunately he is sucking up a lot of today's youth in this crap and instead of paying attention in school and getting a job they are supporting this crap. None of it makes any sense, he doesn't have any original ideas, every proposal he has consists of stealing money from someone and spending it on someone else.

It's not a blog, it is his "policies" and they are a socialist dream. Luckily, as Pres he couldn't do all that stuff but just publishing this garbage is enough to completely discount him as a thinking human being. It's like AOC wrote his website. I don't like any of it.Can you even pick out one thing in all of that that makes sense?

Sorry, I thought it was a blog due to snarky commenting at the end of his proposals, I didn't know those were your comments, I figured you would have highlighted them or actually explained how and why they can't work.

How do they make no sense? How has he already somehow spent 5x all the money in the world? Do you think Trump is spending money we have? You literally fall to explain any of your points. Do you expect me to read your mind? Post a policy and explain to me how or why it won't work. How are we going to learn anything if all your answers are 'hAhA nO.'

 

[watisthis]

You are exactly the kind of person the left hates. You should quit being responsible, send your kids to re education camps so they can be good little communists, denounce God, become dependent on .gov, start some vices like drugs or alcoholism, get into a .gov program, leave your wife so she can go on welfare along with your kids and you will fit in perfectly.

I too am a huge fan of Alex Jones. Don't forget eat babies and start a pedophile ring in the basement of a pizza parlor.

 

[lacanteen]

Let's leave out the rhetoric and get into the details. Want to start with Medicare for all? Why?

My take:
-Why for all? What about those that like their plans?
-Won't this create more government AND put people out of work and out of business?
-Will healthcare end up looking like the VA? Or worse: the DMV!
-What about fraud and abuse like Social Security? Fraud and abuse is rare in the private sector.
-Why screw up a complete system to accommodate a small percentage of need?

My solution:
-Nationalize healthcare rules so that all states play by the same rules. This would not only create competition which reduces costs for the consumer, it would lower operating costs within the individual states. I can buy Mustang parts from Steeda in Georgia and they ship it to my door in Louisiana or you door in Maryland AND guess what? Same price.

Change my mind.
GB

 

[Docscurlock]

Sorry, I thought it was a blog due to snarky commenting at the end of his proposals, I didn't know those were your comments, I figured you would have highlighted them or actually explained how and why they can't work.

How do they make no sense? How has he already somehow spent 5x all the money in the world? Do you think Trump is spending money we have? You literally fall to explain any of your points. Do you expect me to read your mind? Post a policy and explain to me how or why it won't work. How are we going to learn anything if all your answers are 'hAhA nO.'

Ok, just to make you happy I will do 2 of his many crazy ideas. I don't have time to do all of them, it would take hours.

#1 Institute a moratorium on deportations until a thorough audit of past practices and policies is complete. My response:So, ignore illegal immigration and the blatant disobeying of our national sovereignty? Anyone that walks across our border, whether they are a criminal or not, whether they are sick or not, whether they can support themselves or not, whether they can find work or not, whether they are human trafficking or not, whether they are terrorists or not can walk over and we don't do anything about it. Complete and utter disregard for our borders, national security, our environment and economy. Does this make any sense to anyone?

# 2 Share Corporate Wealth with Workers. Under this plan, corporations with at least $100 million in annual revenue, corporations with at least $100 million in balance sheet total, and all publicly traded companies will be required to provide at least 2 percent of stock to their workers every year until the company is at least 20 percent owned by employees. This will be done through the issuing of new shares and the establishment of Democratic Employee Ownership Funds. My response: On what planet would this be ok to do? Essentially steal 20% of someone's property, effectively give it to other people for no reason and in no way compensate the owners for this,. the government just gets to take 20% and give it to someone else? Why not 20% ownership in your house or Mustang? You can drive it 5 days a week and the rest of the neighborhood gets it for Saturday and Sunday. Every company will split to be less than $100 mil and there will cease to be public stock offerings for people to invest in companies. The stock market would completely lose value, the retirements of American citizens who are invested in these companies, immediately get a 20% haircut on their investment, no one would invest in growth or business ever again because the government will steal the money and give it to the "workers". This would destroy our economy and complete collapse capitalism. You cold forget the New Green Deal because this country would already be non existent.

 

[Docscurlock]

I too am a huge fan of Alex Jones. Don't forget eat babies and start a pedophile ring in the basement of a pizza parlor.

I bet you are and I should have added have a few abortions an then start a pedophile ring, then you would be the perfect Democrat.

 

[Hack]

Let's leave out the rhetoric and get into the details. Want to start with Medicare for all? Why?

My take:
-Why for all? What about those that like their plans?
-Won't this create more government AND put people out of work and out of business?
-Will healthcare end up looking like the VA? Or worse: the DMV!
-What about fraud and abuse like Social Security? Fraud and abuse is rare in the private sector.
-Why screw up a complete system to accommodate a small percentage of need?

My solution:
-Nationalize healthcare rules so that all states play by the same rules. This would not only create competition which reduces costs for the consumer, it would lower operating costs within the individual states. I can buy Mustang parts from Steeda in Georgia and they ship it to my door in Louisiana or you door in Maryland AND guess what? Same price.

Change my mind.
GB

The whole concept of a republic is that states can do what they want and people have the freedom to move away from failing states. It kind of works as you see lots of people moving out of New York and California. Problem is some people don't recognize why those states are failing and they vote for people espousing the same policies that caused NY and CA to fail.

So I would oppose nationalizing health care. I would get government regulations out of it more. The big problem I think we have with health care is more related to law suits and malpractice costs. I like Trump's law about transparency of fees. That helps to spur competition as people will go to the less expensive places. But some torte reform is also in order IMO.

 

[watisthis]

-Why for all? What about those that like their plans?

The more people in the M4A pool the cheaper it'll be. If we allow private insurers to fragment the pool many people perhaps most likely the rich will abandon the pool for their own private insurance benefitting that company and not the care of other people in the public option. Much like what had happened with ACA. The private insurance industry is inherently wasteful because someone is making a profit. Any corporation has one goal in mind and that is to maximize profit. There is an incredible amount of waste that occurs because not only are people paying for insurance to help cover medical bills they're also paying for insurance in order for some rich people with investments in a company to make money.

A public option maintains the complexity of the current system which is bad for a few reasons. It complicates paper work and promotes the lack of ability that people have. Any day an insurance plan can stop working for a particular network, or your employment status changes, and suddenly you can't go to the doctor you've had for years and now you have to go through the complicated process of finding a new one. M4A is much better politically and easier to market. Its simple and to the point, if you're sick you go to the doctor, end of story. Explaining individual mandates to everyday Americans who are relatively uneducated about health care does not work. Guarantees on the other hand are easy and appealing.

-Won't this create more government AND put people out of work and out of business?

Yes, and yes, millions in administration will lose their jobs from automation. People losing these jobs are inevitable as there is currently a lot of waste. However, it saves the country money and covers everyone with better coverage including health, vision, dental, no deductibles or out of pocket maxims and no surprise bills, actually no bills at all. Also, it is financially and administratively more efficient than our current system. M4A is a deflationary event because so many people will lose their jobs in medical administration. The government has to pick up the slack with fiscal policy to make up for the losses. Such as massive investments in physical and social infrastructure, small business creation and investment, and federal job guarantees. We have a ton of work we need to do as a country almost too much depending on what industry we are talking about. With M4A we will need more medical workers, medical assistants and technicians, sorry clerical jobs are just on the way out.

Transition is not going to be easy and I do not know everything obviously, I need to do more research to better answer you.

-Will healthcare end up looking like the VA? Or worse: the DMV!

A lot of the healthcare provided by the VA actually comes from specific VA hospitals and I believe doctors too. M4A on the other hand is just a big pot of money that is paid out to normal hospitals and doctors when they perform services. The VA infrastructure is really poorly managers see: here and here for a few reasons. Where as most hospitals and doctors officers are not as poorly managed. All of these problems can be fixed by switching to universal healthcare like every other industrialized country has. However, parasitic insurance and drug companies would go out of business and they line the politicians pockets with huge wads of money so use normal people get screwed.

I sort of answered your other questions in there as well although not as well as I would have liked but writing up emails and trying to do this is a bit tricky so I apologize for not being as detailed as I should be. Obviously there are still a lot of problems with this such as hoping government officials in the pockets of Pharma and insurance companies can work together and not defund this or try to destroy it without first trying to let it work.

As for your solution nationalized healthcare, is medicare for all.

 

[watisthis]

#1 Institute a moratorium on deportations until a thorough audit of past practices and policies is complete. My response:So, ignore illegal immigration and the blatant disobeying of our national sovereignty? Anyone that walks across our border, whether they are a criminal or not, whether they are sick or not, whether they can support themselves or not, whether they can find work or not, whether they are human trafficking or not, whether they are terrorists or not can walk over and we don't do anything about it. Complete and utter disregard for our borders, national security, our environment and economy. Does this make any sense to anyone?

He is still keeping the same security at the borders except he's assigning the duties to different groups. "Completely reshape and reform our immigration enforcement system including breaking up ICE and CBP and redistributing their functions to their proper authorities." He called for a temporary moratorium on deportations so that an audit can be performed on procedures, that is no open boarders.

Imo, this is good. The whole immigration debate is about economic concerns. Right now the system in place and the reason why some push for strict immigration laws is that it creates a large pool of unregulated labour, who is afraid of being deported, and who are at the disposal of companies. This labour can be abused, underpaid or not at all, harassed, threatened, and made to do dangerous work, all under the threat of having ICE called on them if they complain. In the end all that happens to these companies is a fine while the illegals risk deportation. So the issues is far larger than just immigration it is unethical business practices as well.

Large corporations target vulnerable communities as a source of labor and use their immigration status to retaliate when workers stand up for themselves. Trump demonized immigrants but had no qualms with employing undocumented workers at his golf clubs and hiring guests workers at his properties. Employers have also used visa programs to exploit a captive workforce that does not have the ability to quit or change jobs.

"Since the implementation of NAFTA the number of Mexicans living below the poverty line has increased by more than 14 million. Not surprisingly, we saw a 185% increase in the number of undocumented immigrants from Mexico in the 90s and 2000s." NAFTA decimated small farmers in Mexico, forcing them north to provide for their families. The strategy for Bernie is to decrease the number of people forced to seek better opportunities due to economic displacement with new trade deals focusing on workers and no multination corporations and special interest groups wanting more cheap and expendable labour. The US has the ability and power to alleviate the reasons for why people have to cross the boarder.

I hope this doesn't come across as all knowing as of course there are many hurdles and difficulties and no one has the perfect policy esp when this problem has existed for decades now. I'll get to your 2nd question in a bit.

 

[Bikeman315]

Back to Bernie and Mike. Once again it seems that name calling is the soup de jour. Bernie has views and opinions that are, quite frankly, out there. He's not the first, nor will he be the last. That doesn't make him crazy or a unhinged lunatic. He certainly is not my cup of tea and I would not vote for him. Now Mike on the other hand is more of my cup of tea. I'm a MOR, centrist independent. I really do not give a shit what ultra right wing conservative Republicans or ultra left wing Socialist Democrats think. I'm more than capable of thinking for myself. He is a capitalist and has been a member of both parties. I voted for Rudy when I lived in NY and I would have voted for Mike as well (he ran as a Republican. He has more money than Trump (when did being successful and having money become a bad thing?) and as a fellow New Yorker has gone toe to toe with him before. Mike cannot be bullied and will not let Trump intimidate him.

So we'll see. If if is only between these two, my money is on Mike.

 

[lacanteen]

I held back a little. First off, I have friends and family in the medical field. If doctors were forced to take MC patients at reduced payouts they would either quit, go bankrupt, or be forced into private care. Many doctors are refusing to take on too many MC patients because they lose money. I don't know what the ratios are. Tort reform to reduce malpractice insurance is a good start.

No one addressed roiling up an entire industry to accommodate roughly 20 million in need of help. It would be cheaper to give the 20 million MC and leave the rest of us alone. At $12K per person that's $240 billion per year. Much less intrusive than turning an industry on its head and would not be good for the economy.

I am not advocating for national healthcare, just a competitive playing field.

 

[lacanteen]

Back to Bernie and Mike. Once again it seems that name calling is the soup de jour. Bernie has views and opinions that are, quite frankly, out there. He's not the first, nor will he be the last. That doesn't make him crazy or a unhinged lunatic. He certainly is not my cup of tea and I would not vote for him. Now Mike on the other hand is more of my cup of tea. I'm a MOR, centrist independent. I really do not give a shit what ultra right wing conservative Republicans or ultra left wing Socialist Democrats think. I'm more than capable of thinking for myself. He is a capitalist and has been a member of both parties. I voted for Rudy when I lived in NY and I would have voted for Mike as well (he ran as a Republican. He has more money than Trump (when did being successful and having money become a bad thing?) and as a fellow New Yorker has gone toe to toe with him before. Mike cannot be bullied and will not let Trump intimidate him.

So we'll see. If if is only between these two, my money is on Mike.

I'll agree with most of that. I was a Rudy fan in 2008 until he laid down and ran for VP because he didn't realize how hard a national campaign is. Now he's just a pitiful lapdog. Bloomberg is the only one in the current pool that can give Trump a run for his money. At least with Trump, we know what we are getting and it's possible the House could flip back Republican.

 

[Bikeman315]

I held back a little. First off, I have friends and family in the medical field. If doctors were forced to take MC patients at reduced payouts they would either quit, go bankrupt, or be forced into private care. Many doctors are refusing to take on too many MC patients because they lose money. I don't know what the ratios are. Tort reform to reduce malpractice insurance is a good start.

No one addressed roiling up an entire industry to accommodate roughly 20 million in need of help. It would be cheaper to give the 20 million MC and leave the rest of us alone. At $12K per person that's $240 billion per year. Much less intrusive than turning an industry on its head and would not be good for the economy.

I am not advocating for national healthcare, just a competitive playing field.

My wife is on her way right now to a root canal specialist. She has a tooth that caused a major infection. We do not know if she is going to have it pulled or fixed. We are already out of pocket $250. The root canal will be another 1350.00. I'm on Medicare and do not have dental insurance. The policies that are available for us just do not cover enough to make it worth our while. So just how many of you have a spare $1600 in your pocket to pay for this. What else would you be doing with $1600 if you didn't have to spend it on a dentist?

Fortunately, $1600 is not going to make or break me. I'm OK, put this cannot be said for everyone. Now I'm not in favor of Medicare for all. But, that, said, something needs to be done. Unfortunately our legislators, both sides, just do not give a shit about us and refuse to do anything.

 

[Silver Bullitt]

The more people in the M4A pool the cheaper it'll be. If we allow private insurers to fragment the pool many people perhaps most likely the rich will abandon the pool for their own private insurance benefitting that company and not the care of other people in the public option. Much like what had happened with ACA. The private insurance industry is inherently wasteful because someone is making a profit. Any corporation has one goal in mind and that is to maximize profit. There is an incredible amount of waste that occurs because not only are people paying for insurance to help cover medical bills they're also paying for insurance in order for some rich people with investments in a company to make money.

A public option maintains the complexity of the current system which is bad for a few reasons. It complicates paper work and promotes the lack of ability that people have. Any day an insurance plan can stop working for a particular network, or your employment status changes, and suddenly you can't go to the doctor you've had for years and now you have to go through the complicated process of finding a new one. M4A is much better politically and easier to market. Its simple and to the point, if you're sick you go to the doctor, end of story. Explaining individual mandates to everyday Americans who are relatively uneducated about health care does not work. Guarantees on the other hand are easy and appealing.



Yes, and yes, millions in administration will lose their jobs from automation. People losing these jobs are inevitable as there is currently a lot of waste. However, it saves the country money and covers everyone with better coverage including health, vision, dental, no deductibles or out of pocket maxims and no surprise bills, actually no bills at all. Also, it is financially and administratively more efficient than our current system. M4A is a deflationary event because so many people will lose their jobs in medical administration. The government has to pick up the slack with fiscal policy to make up for the losses. Such as massive investments in physical and social infrastructure, small business creation and investment, and federal job guarantees. We have a ton of work we need to do as a country almost too much depending on what industry we are talking about. With M4A we will need more medical workers, medical assistants and technicians, sorry clerical jobs are just on the way out.

Transition is not going to be easy and I do not know everything obviously, I need to do more research to better answer you.



A lot of the healthcare provided by the VA actually comes from specific VA hospitals and I believe doctors too. M4A on the other hand is just a big pot of money that is paid out to normal hospitals and doctors when they perform services. The VA infrastructure is really poorly managers see: here and here for a few reasons. Where as most hospitals and doctors officers are not as poorly managed. All of these problems can be fixed by switching to universal healthcare like every other industrialized country has. However, parasitic insurance and drug companies would go out of business and they line the politicians pockets with huge wads of money so use normal people get screwed.

I sort of answered your other questions in there as well although not as well as I would have liked but writing up emails and trying to do this is a bit tricky so I apologize for not being as detailed as I should be. Obviously there are still a lot of problems with this such as hoping government officials in the pockets of Pharma and insurance companies can work together and not defund this or try to destroy it without first trying to let it work.

As for your solution nationalized healthcare, is medicare for all.

Wow! Just Wow!

No thank you! I'll keep what I have and supplement Medicare when the time comes. Funny, in our real world, it was enlightening the number of seniors from north of the border that we met in the Houston area when we were spending a good deal of time there with my daughter. These people traveled thousands of miles to get quality healthcare that was stretched out some times six months or more if even available with their nationalized healthcare. A colleague from work flew his mom from England to have cancer treatment here in the Midwest as she was deemed no longer worthy of treatment in England under their nationalized healthcare. We recently had a little boy from England whose parents brought him to Children's Mercy Hospital here in Kansas City because the nationalized healthcare had written him off as expendable. Death panels may be a harsh term, but it is part of the norm in places like that under nationalized healthcare systems.

Make all the theories and suppositions you want about nationalized healthcare. These are real stories of real people who came here because nationalized healthcare failed them. Instead of destroying what we have, let's find a solution for the small minority that doesn't have health insurance (but do still have access to healthcare by the way).

I've got an idea. Why don't the liberals take responsibility for themselves first, before they start trying take responsibility for those of us who actually are responsible?

Sponsored