(April 22, 2015 at 8:30 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(April 22, 2015 at 8:24 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The choices were exceedingly limited.

Second time for me, I walked into the voting booth and said soto voce prior to voting for Obama, "OK, I know you're going to throw me under the bus as soon as you're re-elected. Just so you know, you're not fooling me this time." 

Close to what I said...which was along the lines of "no way am I voting for that rich mormon fuckhead."

(April 22, 2015 at 8:01 pm)Polaris Wrote: McCain would have done just the same as Obama on healthcare, but probably would not have allowed it to be called McCainCare.

But with McCain we would have just continued the old system. Decent coverage available only with Group plans. Meaning no full time job equals no health care. Even a lot of workers like cooks who work 40 hours don't get "bennies." Got cancer in your past? Uninsurable. Therefore, unemployable as well because no firm will hire someone they can't get onto their plan, except the day labor and janitor outfits.

Obamacare will run into trouble because it does nothing to contain rising costs while it promises subsidies Uncle Sugar will have to cough up. Just like the price of Medicare and Medicaid started low and then exploded. But we have the shame of having the world's best care for some people and care on a par with Uganda for our "undeserving" segment of the population.

(April 23, 2015 at 9:54 am)Hatshepsut Wrote: Obamacare will run into trouble because it does nothing to contain rising costs while it promises subsidies Uncle Sugar will have to cough up. 

The problem with our health care system is we've put the foxes in charge of the chicken coup and are hoping they'll take care of the chickens out of the kindness of their hearts. Obamacare is like trying to regulate the foxes so they don't eat so many chickens. The solution is to get the foxes out of the chicken coup completely. 

One of the first things I learned in Organizational Behavior class in business school is "don't reward A and hope for B". This is a lesson we need to learn as we examine our system.

For profit companies will pursue profits. They're not bad for doing so. It's what they do, like water seeking the path of least resistance to flow to its own level. For profit health insurance companies increase profits by NOT taking care of sick people. Therefore, they can be expected to do anything to not take care of sick people. They'll try to knock sick people off their roles. They'll try to keep them off citing pre-existing conditions. They'll add to administrative costs making doctors jump through hoops to get compensation. They'll drag out payments as long as they can. They do these things because they make money doing them. The fault isn't theirs but ours for putting them in charge and hoping they'll act contrary to their nature. 

So not only are they a useless middle man, and such things always add to the costs to the consumer, but they have a vested interest to NOT do the job we hope they'll do. 

No wonder Americans pay the most and get the least with health care.

The solution is have the government run health care. It should be a community function, much like the military, fire departments and police force. 

(April 23, 2015 at 10:27 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: For profit companies will pursue profits. They're not bad for doing so...For profit health insurance companies increase profits by NOT taking care of sick people. Therefore, ... The fault isn't theirs but ours for putting them in charge and hoping they'll act contrary to their nature. 

True. We need single-payer or at least a system like Germany's "sickness funds" that are nominally outside government but required to run as nonprofits and follow German rules.

Here, doctors, hospitals, & drug firms make profits by doing more care, putting them in a tug-of-war with insurers wanting less care. Steven Brill in America's Bitter Pill  thinks monolithic hospital/doctor outfits like New York Presbyterian are getting an upper hand in a pushback. What happens is the worst of both worlds: NYP can force its sponsoring insurers to pay close to its outrageous chargemaster sticker prices, but the insurers meanwhile can still excuse themselves by refusing to cover or through deductibles and copays, leaving patients in the lurch.

Even though I lean right, I would vote for a genuine peace candidate from either party. Obviously not Hillary and certainly not Jeb Bush. To me it's easily the most important issue and also the one where the president actually matters.

(April 28, 2015 at 10:48 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: ...I would vote for a genuine peace candidate from either party...To me it's easily the most important issue and also the one where the president actually matters.

Presidents certainly matter peace-wise, but a peace-loving president may not guarantee us peace in the Middle East or in the Ukraine. Not only is the situation in the theaters beyond a president's control, but so is the weight and inertia of U.S. policies a president may not feel at liberty to overturn. There be many men, women, and institutionalized factions surrounding the Oval Office.

(April 22, 2015 at 10:22 pm)Polaris Wrote:

(April 22, 2015 at 10:11 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Oh there were more than a few really, really embarrassed Fox pundits who were predicting a big GOP blowout. Not just a Romney victory but a landslide victory. 

It was a thing of beauty to see them on the morning after eating crow. 

Even HuffPost was making a fuss about it.

It's all about what they call "voter rights."  The DNC figured out first with enough time and money, they can go into the concentrated low turnout/low information segments of their base (black/hispanic/college), fill out their voter registrations for them, and then drive each one of them to the polls with a pamphlet telling them how they should vote.  Or more conveniently, put the polling place next to their church or in their school cafeteria every weekend for 2 months prior to the election.

It's a really smart system, in that it bypasses things like debate, and skips to what matters...votes.  I'm sure Romney won by a landslide with voters who could name both of the vice presidential candidates.  

And that's why we saw Republicans sweep the midterms.  Not because of some change in policy, or backlash, or any of that nonsense. There just isn't enough time/money/manpower to hand-hold the democratic base to the polls, or help them all fill out their absentee ballots without the presidential election fundraising levels.

I'm actually surprised Republicans are pro-campaign funding, because the Democrats get a lot more bang for their buck in terms of what they can do with their money. The republican base, while idiotic, is self-motivated.

With Bernie officially throwing his hat in, I'll need to do more research, both of the candidates and myself. I was seemingly irrevocably behind Hillary, but I'm actually looking forward to a debate between the two.

(April 30, 2015 at 11:13 am)c172 Wrote: With Bernie officially throwing his hat in, I'll need to do more research, both of the candidates and myself. I was seemingly irrevocably behind Hillary, but I'm actually looking forward to a debate between the two.

If you like Warren, you'll love Bernie.  I grew up in Vermont, and the guy is legit.  I'm a republican, so I don't agree with the premises for his positions, but his integrity factor is off the charts as far as politicians go.  

His "Net Worth" after a life in politics is $460,500.  That strikes me as crazy low.

I actually went to college near Brattleboro, so through cable, I'd get Ch. 3 Burlington (WCAX-CBS), so I'd frequently get a good dose of him. I love ow he speaks from the heart, which I do believe Obama did initially. I just hope Bernie doesn't lose that like O did.