Jump to content
Simon

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Old Man said:

I share Badger's annoyance at paywalled medical and scientific journals.

 

Instead I will quote a different intellectual elitist, John Oliver:

 

 

 

 

I actually can agree with a lot of it.   Have to disagree with his last point.  The last 5-10 years my area has gotten progressively worse with the care.   I admit I don't how much the ACA has been to blame or not.  But, any change worries me because, we really cant afford much worse.  Remember Vader and Lando, that is me on health care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Badger said:

 

I live in a rural area, we got only one hospital to go within a 45 minutes drive.   Not so easy to just go to another hospital in even the best of circumstances.  My former company even filed several lawsuits against the hospital over price gouging our insurance company.   (also the neighboring county's hospital closed down 3-4 years ago, so we got one hospital servicing the greater part of 2 counties essentially).  That bargaining power is mostly theoretical for the insurance company.

 

Until we move to a system where fees for medical services are negotiated with the medical system as a whole - all the hospitals, not just one hospital.

 

The only option the insurance company has is a refusal to cover (or higher premiums) for those living in that region.  The government has a few more options.  The reality is that the "free market" assumes "perfect competition".  When barriers to entry or other "imperfect economic systems" create unequal bargaining power, the "free market" theory fails.  Tat is the cause of government regulation, or even government management, of many areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Until we move to a system where fees for medical services are negotiated with the medical system as a whole - all the hospitals, not just one hospital.

 

The only option the insurance company has is a refusal to cover (or higher premiums) for those living in that region.  The government has a few more options.  The reality is that the "free market" assumes "perfect competition".  When barriers to entry or other "imperfect economic systems" create unequal bargaining power, the "free market" theory fails.  Tat is the cause of government regulation, or even government management, of many areas.

 

Many hospitals in rural areas are county-run, and take patients regardless of ability to pay. They have been squeezed between higher prices for drugs and supplies, and lower revenues, and usually operate at a deficit. Some of these hospitals have closed because of budgetary reasons, while others have had to limit services. While universal healthcare wouldn't necessarily solve these issues, it would add revenue for what is now indigent care. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Providers here have been on the ropes for about a decade now. We’ve had a couple of hospitals shut down, the one Level 1 trauma care facility in the state is teetering on bankruptcy, and doctors are tripping over each other in their haste to leave the state. The status quo is going to end one way or another. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ternaugh said:

 

Many hospitals in rural areas are county-run, and take patients regardless of ability to pay. They have been squeezed between higher prices for drugs and supplies, and lower revenues, and usually operate at a deficit. Some of these hospitals have closed because of budgetary reasons, while others have had to limit services. While universal healthcare wouldn't necessarily solve these issues, it would add revenue for what is now indigent care. 

 

Yeah, it is county owned.  And when I had to take my mother when she broke that bone in her neck.  I'd say it, devolved to a glorified MASH unit as it is.  And she had to be taken to a hospital 2 counties away.  

 

I think the state rep for the area of the neighboring county, whose hospital did shut down, did try to get it re-opened from help of the state House, but their attitude was pretty much not giving a ____.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Old Man said:

Providers here have been on the ropes for about a decade now. We’ve had a couple of hospitals shut down, the one Level 1 trauma care facility in the state is teetering on bankruptcy, and doctors are tripping over each other in their haste to leave the state. The status quo is going to end one way or another. 

Yes, but if you ride the flaming wreckage down into the bottomless precipice of jagged rocks, all the while pumping out helpful observations to the effect that  nothing else is politically practical, you can secure the precious "moderate" high ground for 2024, when the Democrats are due. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually caught most of a Democratic primary debate for the first time.  Warren was on point.  Bloomberg was... not.  Like, I almost felt sympathy for the guy, wasting $400M worth of ads like that.

 

Buttigieg and Klobuchar either really hate each other, or are madly in love with each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Old Man said:

Actually caught most of a Democratic primary debate for the first time.  Warren was on point.  Bloomberg was... not.  Like, I almost felt sympathy for the guy, wasting $400M worth of ads like that.

 

Buttigieg and Klobuchar either really hate each other, or are madly in love with each other.

 

When I feel sorry for Bloomberg, start selling some heaters in hell. :winkgrin:

 

Best comment I've seen on online of Bloomberg lately: "He is Trump plus a hatred of soda."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Old Man said:

Actually caught most of a Democratic primary debate for the first time.  Warren was on point.  Bloomberg was... not.  Like, I almost felt sympathy for the guy, wasting $400M worth of ads like that.

 

Buttigieg and Klobuchar either really hate each other, or are madly in love with each other.

Finally finished it. I see your points.

 

My own take?

Warren excelled. She should get that bump. I was reminded why she and Bernie have often been tied for my consideration.

Bloomberg his ass handed to him collectively, but especially by Warren. He's not out though. His spin team will earn it's money before it's all said and done and I actually think he's here for a while.

Bernie had shots fired at him, but most missed or tinked right off... and his lead position is secure unless something really hinkey goes on in Nevada.

Buttigieg actually came across as rather unlikable here to me. Seriously, the whole thing about the Mexican President's name felt like he was really trying to get a Nelson from the Simpsons "HAHA" thing going on Klobuchar. With Bloomberg's debut flopping, I see him as getting the moderate group's support more and more.

BIDEN, however, had one of his better debates. Even he got a shot in on Bloomberg, and while he still seemed a bit fuzzy, it was a lot better than some in the past. However, 'better' is not good enough. I think he maybe bleeding slower, but he's still losing blood.

Klobuchar was PEEEEVED and it showed, worse than that, she seemed a bit shook, and some folks are going to say if Pete could do that to her, Trump will wipe the floor with her. Not saying she sucked, but I think next to Bloombeg she had the poorest performance, and unlike Bloomers, she may not have the money to spin it away.

 

Winners Warner and Sanders, in that order.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly have trouble seeing Donald Trump as a serious threat in a real debate. The man is ignorant, undisciplined, and has no self-control. If Hillary Clinton hadn't already been carrying a wounded reputation, and hadn't let Trump get under her skin, she could have readily handled him. An opponent coming into the next presidential debate with him will be armed with a host of facts which Trump doesn't know and/or will have lied about, to counter his hollow bluster. Of course his hard-core base eats up Trump's bluster, but they'll vote for him even if he proclaimed himself the Second Coming... or the Antichrist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lord Liaden said:

I honestly have trouble seeing Donald Trump as a serious threat in a real debate. The man is ignorant, undisciplined, and has no self-control. If Hillary Clinton hadn't already been carrying a wounded reputation, and hadn't let Trump get under her skin, she could have readily handled him. An opponent coming into the next presidential debate with him will be armed with a host of facts which Trump doesn't know and/or will have lied about, to counter his hollow bluster. Of course his hard-core base eats up Trump's bluster, but they'll vote for him even if he proclaimed himself the Second Coming... or the Antichrist.

 

Yeah, the Die Hard Trumpers would claim Trump won a debate if started babling about how America's greatest new threat is the planet Neptune which is Socialist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hermit said:

 

Yeah, the Die Hard Trumpers would claim Trump won a debate if started babling about how America's greatest new threat is the planet Neptune which is Socialist.

 

So, that's what the Space Force is for. "I'm sorry, Mr President, but we didn't find anything on Neptune. Should we check Uranus?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

I honestly have trouble seeing Donald Trump as a serious threat in a real debate. The man is ignorant, undisciplined, and has no self-control. If Hillary Clinton hadn't already been carrying a wounded reputation, and hadn't let Trump get under her skin, she could have readily handled him. An opponent coming into the next presidential debate with him will be armed with a host of facts which Trump doesn't know and/or will have lied about, to counter his hollow bluster. Of course his hard-core base eats up Trump's bluster, but they'll vote for him even if he proclaimed himself the Second Coming... or the Antichrist.

 

Hillary handily won all three debates with Trump and it didn't matter.  As much as I'd like to see Warren or Bernie debate Trump, it isn't going to happen simply because Trump won't show up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only watched a significant of the first debate last time.  From what I did see, Lester Holt was a little too ready to get into a debate with Trump, leaving Hillary to stand and watch.  That was probably just enough of a bad look for the excuse that "trump won" or at least "stood his own against a 2 vs 1".   Or even at the very least that "Hillary didn't win" because she wasn't even speaking for minutes upon minutes at a time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Undoubtedly Faux News is going to spin any debate however they want.  But all of the 2016 debates had a seasoned political pro up against a rich fat former reality TV star with a ridiculous tie, fake hair, and a fake tan, who obviously had no clue about anything and tried to get through on sheer bluster.  Often all Hillary had to do was stand there and watch Trump make a fool of himself, in much the same way that the person who inflicted the most damage on Bloomberg's campaign last night was Bloomberg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...