Political Roundtable Part XV

[dckingsfan]

Bolded is a tell. Democrats made a ton of concessions on ACA to the point where the ACA is nearly a republican plan. It's why the Republicans can't actually repeal ACA today - they don't have any healthcare ideas aside from the hardliners' desire to totally privatize everything and massively contract the federal government. ACA is 90% a facsimile of what Republicans would come up with in an alternate universe where Obama never existed.

A tell is that I am giving something away. Tell me where I am giving something away - did you feel I was supporting the Rs in my comments? Tell me where the Ds went after the cost drivers?

I personally don't care who's idea the ACA was - as structured it was very flawed - assume that you blame this on the Rs. After all, your Ds were not complicit in the bad legislation process - or you will have a very good excuse for them.

You're giving it away, as usual, that you're no different than every other deficit hawk - spending only matters when it's on things you don't like. 'Entitlements' make you see red, but military spending is always a-okay because of the most literal reading of Muh Constitution. Yawn (I have no comeback so I like to yawn)

In this case it's that you think Democrats were "equally obstructionist" as Republicans or whatever when it comes to ACA. Like, that's obviously wrong.

You have the wrong deficit hawk. I have advocated (on this board for you to see) that we reduce or Military spending to under 2%. That we should reduce bases, especially when they can be taken over by our partner countries that are spending less than 2% on defense.

And I didn't say the Democrats were obstructionist on the ACA - they supported it overwhelmingly. What I said is that they were equally wimpy and complicit on tackling the cost drivers.

And entitlement spending makes me see red because it is unsustainable and will eventually REDUCE the services we can provide. Wrap your head around that - and you will see that we have a spending problem - that will eventually reduce our ability to provide all entitlements.

[montestewart]

This is so odd to me. I'm a poor kid from the south side of chicago. parents were hard core drug dealers and "connected" to be honest. I ended up serving aboard the USS parche and USS Bates as a ships diver and ET/CT tech (now intelligence officer) so i did missions with the SEALS on the bates, then became a 2 sport NCAA div athlete when i went to college, then a doctor/oral surgeon, then successful real estate developer...and none of you think you have anything to learn from me. and in fact you all think you got the entire world figured out and I'm somehow an idiot? Imagine all that is true for a second. and then imagine that I'm 45 and my girlfriend is a 26 year old former playboy model and northwestern grad(which i mentoin just to paint you a picture of the lifestyle i live. A different ex girl friend was a ranking employee of penny pritzker so i was at the christmas party in 2008 among like 80 people in a living room. obama was there all night with the entire cabinet. All my friends are investment bankers/doctors/lawyers/developers/contractors/police officers. My step brother did 20 years marines (12 tours in the middle east)and now is a dept of homeland security ranking officer. I mean I could go on. seriously on and on.

and you guys dont think you have anything to learn from me? Shocking. you guys clearly are NOT here to learn. you are here to hear yourself talk. and frankly. most of you dont know jack shxt. sorry not sorry. I probably knew more about this world in '93 when i left the military. sad. carry on.

HOF?

[DCZards]

This is so odd to me. I'm a poor kid from the south side of chicago. parents were hard core drug dealers and "connected" to be honest. I ended up serving aboard the USS parche and USS Bates as a ships diver and ET/CT tech (now intelligence officer) so i did missions with the SEALS on the bates, then became a 2 sport NCAA div athlete when i went to college, then a doctor/oral surgeon, then successful real estate developer...and none of you think you have anything to learn from me. and in fact you all think you got the entire world figured out and I'm somehow an idiot? Imagine all that is true for a second. and then imagine that I'm 45 and my girlfriend is a 26 year old former playboy model and northwestern grad(which i mentoin just to paint you a picture of the lifestyle i live. A different ex girl friend was a ranking employee of penny pritzker so i was at the christmas party in 2008 among like 80 people in a living room. obama was there all night with the entire cabinet. All my friends are investment bankers/doctors/lawyers/developers/contractors/police officers. My step brother did 20 years marines (12 tours in the middle east)and now is a dept of homeland security ranking officer. I mean I could go on. seriously on and on.

and you guys dont think you have anything to learn from me? Shocking. you guys clearly are NOT here to learn. you are here to hear yourself talk. and frankly. most of you dont know jack shxt. sorry not sorry. I probably knew more about this world in '93 when i left the military. sad. carry on.

SD20, I find laughable your over-the-top arrogant belief that your background somehow qualifies you to “educate” the rest of us. You claim to have unique and enlightening experiences that posters here can learn from. But I’m sure that many others on this board have equally enlightening backgrounds and experiences.

I have a close childhood friend who dropped out of high school and has spent the bulk of his adult life in prison (He’s out now.) I’m always impressed by how wise and worldly he is…much more so than many of the highly degreed, well-paid, well-connected people I come in contact with here in DC and elsewhere.

So I’m not impressed by people’s credentials, who they know or have met, or who they’re screwing.

[cammac]

This is so odd to me. I'm a poor kid from the south side of chicago. parents were hard core drug dealers and "connected" to be honest. I ended up serving aboard the USS parche and USS Bates as a ships diver and ET/CT tech (now intelligence officer) so i did missions with the SEALS on the bates, then became a 2 sport NCAA div athlete when i went to college, then a doctor/oral surgeon, then successful real estate developer...and none of you think you have anything to learn from me. and in fact you all think you got the entire world figured out and I'm somehow an idiot? Imagine all that is true for a second. and then imagine that I'm 45 and my girlfriend is a 26 year old former playboy model and northwestern grad(which i mentoin just to paint you a picture of the lifestyle i live. A different ex girl friend was a ranking employee of penny pritzker so i was at the christmas party in 2008 among like 80 people in a living room. obama was there all night with the entire cabinet. All my friends are investment bankers/doctors/lawyers/developers/contractors/police officers. My step brother did 20 years marines (12 tours in the middle east)and now is a dept of homeland security ranking officer. I mean I could go on. seriously on and on.

and you guys dont think you have anything to learn from me? Shocking. you guys clearly are NOT here to learn. you are here to hear yourself talk. and frankly. most of you dont know jack shxt. sorry not sorry. I probably knew more about this world in '93 when i left the military. sad. carry on.

HOF?

Lets analysis the rant!
I was a poor boy but my parents were connected hard core drug dealers!
Poor with big time drug dealers parents doesn't make sense.
Assuming you were aboard the 2 attack submarines that you quoted I believe you had a minimum of 2 years and more likely 4 years of active service. I also believe that the minimum age of enlisting is 18. Then you had a maximum of 2 years NCAA eligibility or zero.
I applaud that you are having a successful dating life but really who gives a rats ass.
Again nice being in the same room with President Obama and his cabinet if it happened likely needed a substantial donation.
You seem to associate with the "creme de la creme" maybe you should broaden your horizons.
From what you have taught us of the humble proletariat is that you are a jackass and no you can't teach us anything.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/International_Jewish_conspiracy
Your views are complete and utter clap trap I find it hard that you could teach most on this board anything and again you are a sanctimonious, braggadocios, individual who somehow believes he is part 007 and Donald boy.

[gtn130]

A tell is that I am giving something away. Tell me where I am giving something away - did you feel I was supporting the Rs in my comments? Tell me where the Ds went after the cost drivers?

I personally don't care who's idea the ACA was - as structured it was very flawed - assume that you blame this on the Rs. After all, your Ds were not complicit in the bad legislation process - or you will have a very good excuse for them.

You're giving it away, as usual, that you're no different than every other deficit hawk - spending only matters when it's on things you don't like. 'Entitlements' make you see red, but military spending is always a-okay because of the most literal reading of Muh Constitution. Yawn (I have no comeback so I like to yawn)

In this case it's that you think Democrats were "equally obstructionist" as Republicans or whatever when it comes to ACA. Like, that's obviously wrong.

You have the wrong deficit hawk. I have advocated (on this board for you to see) that we reduce or Military spending to under 2%. That we should reduce bases, especially when they can be taken over by our partner countries that are spending less than 2% on defense.

And I didn't say the Democrats were obstructionist on the ACA - they supported it overwhelmingly. What I said is that they were equally wimpy and complicit on tackling the cost drivers.

And entitlement spending makes me see red because it is unsustainable and will eventually REDUCE the services we can provide. Wrap your head around that - and you will see that we have a spending problem - that will eventually reduce our ability to provide all entitlements.

Buddy, this whole thing started with you defending Ron Johnson's idiotic take that basically everything is a privilege except for the Republican interpretations of constitutional boilerplate. If you really are some originalist hardliner, cool I guess, but literally every other wealthy and westernized country in the world considers healthcare a right and provides some form of universal coverage.*

This is a totally, fundamentally different argument than the one you quietly pivoted to - that we can't afford it because of something something deficit something something entitlement spending. Your original take, as I understand it, is that there is actual ideological consideration behind NOT making healthcare a right - reasoning beyond the logistics of paying for healthcare.

And again, I know its fun for you to mow down single-payer strawmen, but I don't think anyone was even really talking about Bernie Sanders' plan - it was just about providing better coverage, which in your mind immediately translates to dumping $3 trillion into socialized medicine and setting our economy on fire, so every single healthcare conversation has to be derailed with Who's Gonna Pay For It.

*Disclaimer: having a pedantic argument over the definition of a 'right' is not something I'm interested in doing again.

[dckingsfan]

You're giving it away, as usual, that you're no different than every other deficit hawk - spending only matters when it's on things you don't like. 'Entitlements' make you see red, but military spending is always a-okay because of the most literal reading of Muh Constitution. Yawn (I have no comeback so I like to yawn)

In this case it's that you think Democrats were "equally obstructionist" as Republicans or whatever when it comes to ACA. Like, that's obviously wrong.

You have the wrong deficit hawk. I have advocated (on this board for you to see) that we reduce or Military spending to under 2%. That we should reduce bases, especially when they can be taken over by our partner countries that are spending less than 2% on defense.

And I didn't say the Democrats were obstructionist on the ACA - they supported it overwhelmingly. What I said is that they were equally wimpy and complicit on tackling the cost drivers.

And entitlement spending makes me see red because it is unsustainable and will eventually REDUCE the services we can provide. Wrap your head around that - and you will see that we have a spending problem - that will eventually reduce our ability to provide all entitlements.

Buddy, this whole thing started with you defending Ron Johnson's idiotic take that basically everything is a privilege except for the Republican interpretations of constitutional boilerplate. If you really are some originalist hardliner, cool I guess, but literally every other wealthy and westernized country in the world considers healthcare a right and provides some form of universal coverage.*

This is a totally, fundamentally different argument than the one you quietly pivoted to - that we can't afford it because of something something deficit something something entitlement spending. Your original take, as I understand it, is that there is actual ideological consideration behind NOT making healthcare a right - reasoning beyond the logistics of paying for healthcare.

And again, I know its fun for you to mow down single-payer strawmen, but I don't think anyone was even really talking about Bernie Sanders' plan - it was just about providing better coverage, which in your mind immediately translates to dumping $3 trillion into socialized medicine and setting our economy on fire, so every single healthcare conversation has to be derailed with Who's Gonna Pay For It.

*Disclaimer: having a pedantic argument over the definition of a 'right' is not something I'm interested in doing again.

Reminder: I didn't defend Johnson on his argument that healthcare was a privilege - I defended him that it wasn't a right, rather a service. If it is a right - then which part of healthcare is a right?

Vs. if it is a service - we can start down the path of providing the best service possible against the tax revenues we have - and that is measurable and sustainable.

And yes, I don't want to toss $3T against healthcare and get even less back in return. I want to see them take on the cost drivers and work toward providing constantly improving service against our tax dollars. And that is material.

And your argument - "Who's Gonna Pay For It" falls on deaf ears for me. I have pointed out repeatedly that we can't pay for Bernie's program even if we put all of our tax dollars against it. This is kind of like the global warming deniers - one only has to look at the data to understand this.

Again, attack the cost drivers first (or at the same time) as the benefit allocation process and we will be fine. Don't do it and there is no way to get from here to there. Bernie's plan sucks because he doesn't take on the cost drivers.

[cammac]

You have the wrong deficit hawk. I have advocated (on this board for you to see) that we reduce or Military spending to under 2%. That we should reduce bases, especially when they can be taken over by our partner countries that are spending less than 2% on defense.

And I didn't say the Democrats were obstructionist on the ACA - they supported it overwhelmingly. What I said is that they were equally wimpy and complicit on tackling the cost drivers.

And entitlement spending makes me see red because it is unsustainable and will eventually REDUCE the services we can provide. Wrap your head around that - and you will see that we have a spending problem - that will eventually reduce our ability to provide all entitlements.

Buddy, this whole thing started with you defending Ron Johnson's idiotic take that basically everything is a privilege except for the Republican interpretations of constitutional boilerplate. If you really are some originalist hardliner, cool I guess, but literally every other wealthy and westernized country in the world considers healthcare a right and provides some form of universal coverage.*

This is a totally, fundamentally different argument than the one you quietly pivoted to - that we can't afford it because of something something deficit something something entitlement spending. Your original take, as I understand it, is that there is actual ideological consideration behind NOT making healthcare a right - reasoning beyond the logistics of paying for healthcare.

And again, I know its fun for you to mow down single-payer strawmen, but I don't think anyone was even really talking about Bernie Sanders' plan - it was just about providing better coverage, which in your mind immediately translates to dumping $3 trillion into socialized medicine and setting our economy on fire, so every single healthcare conversation has to be derailed with Who's Gonna Pay For It.

*Disclaimer: having a pedantic argument over the definition of a 'right' is not something I'm interested in doing again.

Reminder: I didn't defend Johnson on his argument that healthcare was a privilege - I defended him that it wasn't a right, rather a service. If it is a right - then which part of healthcare is a right?

Vs. if it is a service - we can start down the path of providing the best service possible against the tax revenues we have - and that is measurable and sustainable.

And yes, I don't want to toss $3T against healthcare and get even less back in return. I want to see them take on the cost drivers and work toward providing constantly improving service against our tax dollars. And that is material.

And your argument - "Who's Gonna Pay For It" falls on deaf ears for me. I have pointed out repeatedly that we can't pay for Bernie's program even if we put all of our tax dollars against it. This is kind of like the global warming deniers - one only has to look at the data to understand this.

Again, attack the cost drivers first (or at the same time) as the benefit allocation process and we will be fine. Don't do it and there is no way to get from here to there. Bernie's plan sucks because he doesn't take on the cost drivers.

I totally enjoy both of you but right now it is a matter of semantics you are both correct in the wealthiest country in the world everyone should have healthcare you can call it a right or a necessity. The proof in the pudding is finding a way to achieve universal healthcare. It can be both a federal and state initiative but in this the federal government sets up the policy and distributes some extra $ to have not States. But States implement the policy even if in some it requires freedom of abortion.

In Canada the highest personal tax federally is 33% and personal income taxes represents 3.5 x corporation taxes while Ontario provincial taxes are 13.16% both are on incomes over $220,000. Also it a Harmonized Sales Tax is 13% on some goods and services which is a combination of both Federal and Provincial taxes. Some other income is taxed at lower rate capital gains @ 25% and dividend income in my case is 20% but for lower income people can be 15% or 0%. Obviously we also have property taxes and hidden taxes on gasoline and SIN taxes ( Alcohol, Cigarettes and soon on pot ) The average cost for healthcare for a family of 4 is $17,500 .
You also have to look at our Corporate Tax Rate is 15% for company's making over $500,000 and 10.5% for company's under $500,000. Both individuals and employers pay for health insurance but then again our corporate rates are lower than even proposed USA corporate rates.

But Canada also handle the drivers in that doctors, hospital charges rates are set, drug prices with big pharma is negotiated at much lower rates than the USA and awards in litigation are significantly lower than in USA. Health Insurance companies aren't shut out entirely they can offer services not covered by the national system such as dental, private hospital rooms, drugs under 65 etc. But most services are covered and they don't have deductions. Yes sometimes you must wait it took me a month to see a new cardiologist since we moved into a new house but now I'm on a regular schedule.

I think a similar system would work in the USA and yes it would likely be more expensive than the Canadian system initially but in the longer term keeps healthcare at a sustainable rate.

[stilldropin20]

This is so odd to me. I'm a poor kid from the south side of chicago. parents were hard core drug dealers and "connected" to be honest. I ended up serving aboard the USS parche and USS Bates as a ships diver and ET/CT tech (now intelligence officer) so i did missions with the SEALS on the bates, then became a 2 sport NCAA div athlete when i went to college, then a doctor/oral surgeon, then successful real estate developer...and none of you think you have anything to learn from me. and in fact you all think you got the entire world figured out and I'm somehow an idiot? Imagine all that is true for a second. and then imagine that I'm 45 and my girlfriend is a 26 year old former playboy model and northwestern grad(which i mentoin just to paint you a picture of the lifestyle i live. A different ex girl friend was a ranking employee of penny pritzker so i was at the christmas party in 2008 among like 80 people in a living room. obama was there all night with the entire cabinet. All my friends are investment bankers/doctors/lawyers/developers/contractors/police officers. My step brother did 20 years marines (12 tours in the middle east)and now is a dept of homeland security ranking officer. I mean I could go on. seriously on and on.

and you guys dont think you have anything to learn from me? Shocking. you guys clearly are NOT here to learn. you are here to hear yourself talk. and frankly. most of you dont know jack shxt. sorry not sorry. I probably knew more about this world in '93 when i left the military. sad. carry on.

SD20, I find laughable your over-the-top arrogant belief that your background somehow qualifies you to “educate” the rest of us. You claim to have unique and enlightening experiences that posters here can learn from. But I’m sure that many others on this board have equally enlightening backgrounds and experiences.

I have a close childhood friend who dropped out of high school and has spent the bulk of his adult life in prison (He’s out now.) I’m always impressed by how wise and worldly he is…much more so than many of the highly degreed, well-paid, well-connected people I come in contact with here in DC and elsewhere.

So I’m not impressed by people’s credentials, who they know or have met, or who they’re screwing.

oh wait? you and like 7 others are hung up style? as if my audacity to "educate" is any different than yours??

meanwhile, manufacturing sector confidence at 20 year high. uptick started last novemeber 8th. Go t(w)ump!!

[stilldropin20]

Lets analysis the rant!
I was a poor boy but my parents were connected hard core drug dealers!
Poor with big time drug dealers parents doesn't make sense.
Assuming you were aboard the 2 attack submarines that you quoted I believe you had a minimum of 2 years and more likely 4 years of active service. I also believe that the minimum age of enlisting is 18. Then you had a maximum of 2 years NCAA eligibility or zero.
I applaud that you are having a successful dating life but really who gives a rats ass.
Again nice being in the same room with President Obama and his cabinet if it happened likely needed a substantial donation.
You seem to associate with the "creme de la creme" maybe you should broaden your horizons.
From what you have taught us of the humble proletariat is that you are a jackass and no you can't teach us anything.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/International_Jewish_conspiracy
Your views are complete and utter clap trap I find it hard that you could teach most on this board anything and again you are a sanctimonious, braggadocios, individual who somehow believes he is part 007 and Donald boy.

1. let me educate you. drug dealers are all "connected" on some level. just depends on how high up that connection.
2. drug dealers nearly all end broke, in jail, or both. and often. my parents just ended up broke. often.
3. 17 when i entered. i had military waiver from NCAA. but at least you learned I was on 2 sturgeon class attack subs. now go look up wheat those boats did. I cant tell ya nor confirm it. but some of it is "out there."
4. my dating life is relevant to demonstrating that I'm a guy that is out there and of the world. not sitting in my closet digging up conspiracy theories.
5. no donation. invitation.
6. I came from the streets. now i redevelopment some of those same streets. do you have any idea how much one must "learn" to traverse those kinds social-stratification layers and be able to jump back and forth? above all i understand people more than they understand themselves. thats why my writing style "bugs" people like you. cuz i git ya more than you git ya? get it? No, you don't get it! I get it.
7. Now, who wants to learn something? I'm ready to teach. I'm here for ya. for free. not even going to charge ya like Zonker wants to. But, I need at least 4 posters to earnestly demonstrate a willingness to learn so i know im not wasting my time. not looking for deaf ears here. come on. speak up!!

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[stilldropin20]

sooooo. the early consensus amongst talking heads in police, FBI, and homeland is heightened alert into looking into the crowd (more metal detectors and looking into mental illness) and above the crowd.

and limiting large gatherings away from venues near high rises. better control of the "high ground." Of course this is just common sense. Perhaps sniper towers coming.

and then giving back auto and semi auto-matic legislation limiting rounds in clips and the ability to modify (bump stocks).

It's just common sense folks.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

This is so odd to me. I'm a poor kid from the south side of chicago. parents were hard core drug dealers and "connected" to be honest. I ended up serving aboard the USS parche and USS Bates as a ships diver and ET/CT tech (now intelligence officer) so i did missions with the SEALS on the bates, then became a 2 sport NCAA div athlete when i went to college, then a doctor/oral surgeon, then successful real estate developer...and none of you think you have anything to learn from me. and in fact you all think you got the entire world figured out and I'm somehow an idiot? Imagine all that is true for a second. and then imagine that I'm 45 and my girlfriend is a 26 year old former playboy model and northwestern grad(which i mentoin just to paint you a picture of the lifestyle i live. A different ex girl friend was a ranking employee of penny pritzker so i was at the christmas party in 2008 among like 80 people in a living room. obama was there all night with the entire cabinet. All my friends are investment bankers/doctors/lawyers/developers/contractors/police officers. My step brother did 20 years marines (12 tours in the middle east)and now is a dept of homeland security ranking officer. I mean I could go on. seriously on and on.

and you guys dont think you have anything to learn from me? Shocking. you guys clearly are NOT here to learn. you are here to hear yourself talk. and frankly. most of you dont know jack shxt. sorry not sorry. I probably knew more about this world in '93 when i left the military. sad. carry on.

HOF?

This sh_t just keeps getting better.



Sent from my Moto G (4) using RealGM mobile app

[Wizardspride]

Not sure if this has been posted yet but you might want to check it out.

Not naming any names but a few posters thought Milo was hilarious.

I'd like to think this would change their opinions.

Read on Twitter

[stilldropin20]

car jumps curb in london, rams into crowd at musuem. let's hope fatalities and injuries are minimal. this might not even be terrorism.

still tho, man detained. entire 2 block radius shutdown. over 40 vehicles for response and 200 /police/intelligence/anti terrorism agents on scene.

are we coming to a point where sniper towers will be everywhere? cameras everywhere? even in small towns to cover their festivals? will their soon be 3 foot concrete median barriers on every street in america? weapons and bomb sniffing canines everywhere? Military type responders on ready alert everywhere?

I'm wondering what has emboldened citizens around the world in civilized societies to "go postal" so often for lack of a better word? there was a time not that long ago when this type of behavior would not have been acceptable.

What is the underlying motivations?
1. Envy?
2. Anger?
3. Frustraiton?
4. "Enlightenment" aka entitlement?

From, the neighbor next door to the PHD student, to the jilted ex, to the local crazy, why are these "postal" attack so prevalent in the last 20 years.

what have we done to encourage this? Violence on TV? Video games?

why are people so pissed off that they attack innocent people or at least people that have done them no direct harm?

something is going on here. we must be doing something wrong.

IMO, this could be as simple as:
1. people have gotten too comfortable
a. so comfortable that their minds are and bodies are too idle. thoughts wander, sometimes to the darkside.
b. so comfortable for some and not comfortable enough for others and the "others" have finally had enough. and the others minds and bodies are too idle.

I did a barry's boot camp last night with some girl friends. It took everything out of me. tired me out but the natural endorphin release put me on cloud 9. had dinner after words and watched a bulls game. was too tired and feeling too good to think about "the world." Maybe people need to simply work harder? be made to do more physical work? exhaust their minds and bodies. so all they think about is sleep? put more money in their pockets and let them spend more of that money? could it be that simple? this old concept be the solution? unleash the money supply, I say. make money extremely more plentiful to the proletariat the world abound. make them work for it. perhaps 55-65 hour work week is the answer? no free lunch. everyone puts in a hard week's work even for entitlements.

exhausted human beings dont have to time plan and carry out postal missions. they just lookin for a bed to rest. just a thought.

[I_Like_Dirt]

But, wasn't this the same argument for the ACA - we will put this in place and the cost drivers will take care of themselves - but they didn't and haven't.

I would be all for single payer - but we know that the cost drivers would have to be part of the legislation. Until we deal with that we won't be able to get to a sustainable model of healthcare - even if we taxed the one percent 100% of their income.

I don't think the cost drivers will take care of themselves. It's going to take a concerted effort and years of clawing tooth and nail to do that. I think we need a political shift to even have a chance to try. I don't think Bernie is the answer, but he might be an opening to the start of an answer.

As for the ACA, it obviously has serious issues, but I don't think it actually made things worse. We've seen over the years that health care tends to get worse, not better, if left unchanged. And a lot of the screaming from insurers was a precursor to cost drivers being squeezed just a bit until political support developed to try to sabotage it. The more power that falls into the hands of people who legitimately want change for the collective better, the better, and I feel Bernie is that, regardless of what other flaws he may or may not have. I'd be over the moon with a better option, but right now he's miles better than the alternatives from what I can see.

[dckingsfan]

I don't think the cost drivers will take care of themselves. It's going to take a concerted effort and years of clawing tooth and nail to do that.

Agreed - and this is where the debate and political shift needs to happen. We need some great communicator to bring this to the forefront. I think Bill Clinton could have done this... it will be interesting to see who comes to the forefront on this in the next election cycles. Then again, it could just get burried by the single payer fantasy.

I think we need a political shift to even have a chance to try. I don't think Bernie is the answer, but he might be an opening to the start of an answer.

I think he is the opposite of the start - I think he is really reverting to more of the same and obfuscating what needs to get done. Guess we can agree to disagree on that one - but I can think I understand why you have the opinion ... you are thinking some change is better than none (correct me if I am wrong).

As for the ACA, it obviously has serious issues, but I don't think it actually made things worse.

Okay - let's agree to skip this one - I clearly think that this was a flawed approach that hasn't helped for the long-term. It does have some short-term benefits (I listed them before) but overall - I think it just accelerates the underlying problems. It has also undermined the Ds as they have had to defend the policy - I don't see that as helpful either.

We've seen over the years that health care tends to get worse, not better, if left unchanged.

To that I would answer, sometimes. The Employer Sponsored Healthcare Deduction squeezed lots of folks out of affordable healthcare. Tax carveouts for hospital mergers, govenment limitation of who can do procedures (especially ones that don't need to be done by doctors), limiting where drugs can be bought and elevating drug costs, etc., etc. have made matters much worse rather than better. And it is most of the reason that we are in crisis today.

Medicare and Medicade are great programs - but they have been weakened by sucessive expansions to cover more and more until they are now starting to crumble under their own weight.

And a lot of the screaming from insurers was a precursor to cost drivers being squeezed just a bit until political support developed to try to sabotage it. The more power that falls into the hands of people who legitimately want change for the collective better...

Violent agreement

...the better, and I feel Bernie is that, regardless of what other flaws he may or may not have. I'd be over the moon with a better option, but right now he's miles better than the alternatives from what I can see.

And this is where we have to agree to disagree. It would be easy to get legislation that puts us in an even worse place (see my examples above). And what he has described will (I feel) do just that...

[cammac]

I don't think the cost drivers will take care of themselves. It's going to take a concerted effort and years of clawing tooth and nail to do that.

Agreed - and this is where the debate and political shift needs to happen. We need some great communicator to bring this to the forefront. I think Bill Clinton could have done this... it will be interesting to see who comes to the forefront on this in the next election cycles. Then again, it could just get burried by the single payer fantasy.

I think we need a political shift to even have a chance to try. I don't think Bernie is the answer, but he might be an opening to the start of an answer.

I think he is the opposite of the start - I think he is really reverting to more of the same and obfuscating what needs to get done. Guess we can agree to disagree on that one - but I can think I understand why you have the opinion ... you are thinking some change is better than none (correct me if I am wrong).

As for the ACA, it obviously has serious issues, but I don't think it actually made things worse.

Okay - let's agree to skip this one - I clearly think that this was a flawed approach that hasn't helped for the long-term. It does have some short-term benefits (I listed them before) but overall - I think it just accelerates the underlying problems. It has also undermined the Ds as they have had to defend the policy - I don't see that as helpful either.

We've seen over the years that health care tends to get worse, not better, if left unchanged.

To that I would answer, sometimes. The Employer Sponsored Healthcare Deduction squeezed lots of folks out of affordable healthcare. Tax carveouts for hospital mergers, govenment limitation of who can do procedures (especially ones that don't need to be done by doctors), limiting where drugs can be bought and elevating drug costs, etc., etc. have made matters much worse rather than better. And it is most of the reason that we are in crisis today.

Medicare and Medicade are great programs - but they have been weakened by sucessive expansions to cover more and more until they are now starting to crumble under their own weight.

And a lot of the screaming from insurers was a precursor to cost drivers being squeezed just a bit until political support developed to try to sabotage it. The more power that falls into the hands of people who legitimately want change for the collective better...

Violent agreement

...the better, and I feel Bernie is that, regardless of what other flaws he may or may not have. I'd be over the moon with a better option, but right now he's miles better than the alternatives from what I can see.

And this is where we have to agree to disagree. It would be easy to get legislation that puts us in an even worse place (see my examples above). And what he has described will (I feel) do just that...

I think that you must both agree that without Bernie single payer wouldn't even be under consideration and a more socialistic approach to governance. Yes his plan isn't economic feasible but is in the right direction to a plan which can give Americans universal healthcare. Both of you have the right intentions and you need a strong communicator to lead the charge and right now none of the potential candidates for the Democratic leadership are that.Obama made his mistake in the OCA by essentially using Romney Care hoping to get bipartisan agreement which obviously was a error.

[dckingsfan]

I just don't think single payer should be the first step - it would just be doomed under the cost drivers. And I think Bernie bringing up single payer without bring up the cost drivers is more than a little disingenuous.

[I_Like_Dirt]

I think it depends a bit. See, I agree the ACA hasn't helped and things have accelerated, but I think that acceleration happens with or without the ACA. Things have been slowly accelerating for a while now and with the political shifts we're seeing now, whatever structure is in place is merely the cover for the movement of the powers behind the scenes.

As for Bernie being disingenuous, I disagree. He may fail, given the opportunity, but I think he means what he says. I don't come from any change being good change. Some change is bad change, but I'd still be willing to give Bernie a shot. I suspect he'd fail not for lack of effort on his end, but for lack of support from either party, but what he's suggesting is still better than any of the other alternatives like letting millions go without health care and potentially dying. I think Bernie recognizes already what the cost drivers are, but also recognizes that doesn't play well (because it doesn't, sadly). I do think he'd fail, but I'd rather go down throwing a punch than cowering in the corner if it comes to that.

Bernie isn't exactly full of new ideas. He's been saying the same thing for decades. It's pretty depressing that nobody is able to come up with better ideas and instead have simply taken advantage of the system, but that's pretty mich par for the course. As for Bill, I'm not sure he'd have tackled cost drivers like you suggest. He might have, but I'm not convinced. It takes guts to plain stand up to a huge political and capitalist institution and fight billions of dollars out of its control. Bill had a strong populist leaning that I think would have held him back a bit. Bernie really doesn't care in that sense. He has other issues, but he's closer to the do it anyway type of mentality you need to radically overhaul years of history.

Where single payer is better is that it makes it easier to try and tackle those cost drivers. Doesn't mean it will work every time or that it's the only way, because that clearly isn't true, but given where the health care system in particular is at in every developed nation, and America even moreso, I think it offers the highest chance of success at this point.

The underlying issue here is that white collar crime is so grossly misunderstood. Nobody is as afraid of it in the immediate so it isn't strongly regulated against basically ever even though it does far more damage to society collectively than any one-off violent criminal act.

[DCZards]

I just don't think single payer should be the first step - it would just be doomed under the cost drivers. And I think Bernie bringing up single payer without bring up the cost drivers is more than a little disingenuous.

I know you disagree with his approach, but I don’t think Sanders is being either a liar (as you’ve suggested) or disingenuous when he talks about single payer without, at the same time, bringing up the cost drivers.

Bernie’s not stupid. He knows the cost drivers will need to be addressed as part of the process of enacting a single payer plan, and I'm fairly certain he has some ideas for how to address them. But bringing up and debating/discussing those things now would distract from the more important goal of making the case that single payer is the way to go.

Personally, I understand and agree with a strategy of establishing single payer as a national priority (and in the best interest of the collective good) before getting into the weeds regarding cost drivers and how to pay for a single payer plan.