HawkShack.com

to the tune of a paltry $1.6 billion and tax Wall Street to pay for it:

https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie- ... street-tax

Idahawk could be right. If the Dems keep pressing this ultra liberal agenda, we'll end up with another four more years of that hideous buffoon.

Student debt is insane. It's a combination of very liberal loan policies for education, a financially ignorant and desperate population looking to improve themselves through education, and a very inefficient and poorly run K1-12 system that ill prepares our students for college with poor parental involvement and some some private institutions looking to exploit this push for improvement through education tossed in to create a pretty nutty level of student debt. We do need leadership to do a very intensive overhaul of the education system. It will likely have to be a strong Democrat because the teacher's unions would fight Republicans tooth and nail to keep things as they are because they despise Republicans.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Student debt is insane. It's a combination of very liberal loan policies for education, a financially ignorant and desperate population looking to improve themselves through education, and a very inefficient and poorly run K1-12 system that ill prepares our students for college with poor parental involvement and some some private institutions looking to exploit this push for improvement through education tossed in to create a pretty nutty level of student debt. We do need leadership to do a very intensive overhaul of the education system. It will likely have to be a strong Democrat because the teacher's unions would fight Republicans tooth and nail to keep things as they are because they despise Republicans.

Student debt is insane, but that's not the issue. The issue is Sanders' proposal for the government to assume everyone's debt, from the guy that dropped out of college never following through on his education to the doctor and lawyer that can afford to pay it off but doesn't because the interest rates are so low that it makes more sense just to make the minimum payment. Additionally, Sanders wants to make all higher education free, and he's going to do it by taxing Wall Street. It's a multi TRILLION dollar proposal. His rosy scenario $1.6 trillion estimate, which some observers claim could end being twice that amount, is over twice the size of the entire defense budget for 2019.

Sanders is a clown . He will not win the nomination . He’s looking more and more like a clownish cartoon figure trying to out warren warren which why anyone would want to do that or vote for either of them is beyond me.

My guess is Biden will so stand out among the radical activists like sanders he will look even more appealing to the majority of Democrats who want a more moderate party. Even though 49 % identify as liberal a much higher percentage wants a more moderate party, at least for now. Maybe it’s something about electability because it’s all that matters right now.

RiverDog wrote:Student debt is insane, but that's not the issue. The issue is Sanders' proposal for the government to assume everyone's debt, from the guy that dropped out of college never following through on his education to the doctor and lawyer that can afford to pay it off but doesn't because the interest rates are so low that it makes more sense just to make the minimum payment. Additionally, Sanders wants to make all higher education free, and he's going to do it by taxing Wall Street. It's a multi TRILLION dollar proposal. His rosy scenario $1.6 trillion estimate, which some observers claim could end being twice that amount, is over twice the size of the entire defense budget for 2019.

Sanders has nearly no chance of winning if he somehow gets the nomination. If he runs as an independent, he'll pretty much guarantee the re-election of Trump.

Hawktawk wrote:Sanders is a clown . He will not win the nomination . He’s looking more and more like a clownish cartoon figure trying to out warren warren which why anyone would want to do that or vote for either of them is beyond me.

My guess is Biden will so stand out among the radical activists like sanders he will look even more appealing to the majority of Democrats who want a more moderate party. Even though 49 % identify as liberal a much higher percentage wants a more moderate party, at least for now. Maybe it’s something about electability because it’s all that matters right now.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Sanders has nearly no chance of winning if he somehow gets the nomination. If he runs as an independent, he'll pretty much guarantee the re-election of Trump.

I agree with both of you, but I don't think he runs as an independent. He would have done so in 2016 as he was facing an even nastier campaign against HRC than he is this time around. To the contrary, save one or two candidates, nearly all in the bloated field in this year's contest are a lot closer to his philosophy than it was in 2016.

For the life of me, I don't see how some of these goof ball candidates figure how they can finance some of their altruistic schemes. Where are you going to find $1.6 trillion? Simple, tax Wall Street.

Sadly, I feel that this is the direction the country will be taking in the next decade. Even if Biden wins, his age (he'll be 78 by the time he takes office) would almost certainly limit him to one term. Trump will have poisoned the well for a lot of people that used to vote Republican, the next generation is showing clearly liberal tendencies, and the new crop of freshmen Dem legislators are attracting a significant following. Assuming Biden wins the nomination, it will be interesting to see who he selects as a running mate as that person would be in the best position for a 2024 run.

For the life of me, I don't see how some of these goof ball candidates figure how they can finance some of their altruistic schemes.

A combination of:

1. They're idiots.

2. They think their constituents are idiots.

As you alluded to, there's no way *in hell* they'll be able to tax their way to being able to pay for even a single one of these financially illiterate proposals with some dopey "wealth tax" or "taxing Wall Street".

[edit]

And it needs to be hammered home: "canceling" student debt is nothing but a bailout for higher earners. It's literally reverse Robin Hood.

the next generation is showing clearly liberal tendencies, and the new crop of freshmen Dem legislators are attracting a significant following.

That's never *not* been the case, RD. Chill.

[edit2]

And I need to ask:

hideous buffoon

Where in the name of sanity do you get "hideous"? Is Hawktawk rubbing off on you and you can no longer point out that he's a buffoon without adding awkward modifiers?

burrrton wrote:And it needs to be hammered home: "canceling" student debt is nothing but a bailout for higher earners. It's literally reverse Robin Hood.

That's just it. My nephew is currently in the 3rd year of a 7 year medical school that costs him over $50,000 per year, but he's going to be a doctor some day. He'll wind up with $.5 million in debut, but with the money he'll be making, he'll be able to afford it. I worked with a lot of recent college grads with 6 digit college loan debt but it didn't keep them from driving a nice car or buying a home. It's an issue but ranks way down the list of priorities.

the next generation is showing clearly liberal tendencies, and the new crop of freshmen Dem legislators are attracting a significant following.

burrrton wrote:That's never *not* been the case, RD. Chill.

This generation might be different. Because they have so many more distractions, they don't pay attention to the fine print as much as previous generations have. They are also w/o an experience of a war or a major security crisis like a 9/11 that have been wake-up calls for their seniors. But we'll see.

hideous buffoon

burrrton wrote:Where in the name of sanity do you get "hideous"? Is Hawktawk rubbing off on you and you can no longer point out that he's a buffoon without adding awkward modifiers?

Hey, at least I didn't say "orange haired witch"? The difference between me and Hawktalk is that I'm not nearly as paranoid that Trump is going to end the world, a point which was made last week when he showed restraint against Iran.

But I have to admit that every time I see Donald Trump speak I roll my eyes and think about Alec Baldwin's rendition. I used to think that Reagan appeared awkward in impromptu discussions and news conferences, but this guy takes the cake. It's like Cbob said, he's a continuous SNL skit. And I don't care how many millions he's worth, the guy is stupid. If he listened to his advisors, he could at least put on a fig leaf and create the illusion of intelligence, but his refusal to take any advice and just "wing it" makes him look as hideous as Rosie O'Donnell in a string bikini.

Is it just a bailout for high earners? There's a ton of people out there that went into loads of debt for low-earning degrees. I think this would help them immensely, but, at the same time, would be helping those who can handle the debt without help.

With that said, I am not a fan of debt forgiveness but has our country not fabricated the lie that a college degree, no matter what it is, will lead to higher earning and greater success? All colleges, even the state colleges, are not making any effort to advise these kids about their earning potential from their chosen major against the cost to attend; it is all a numbers game for them, so they are not going to discourage anybody from enrolling and taking whatever their heart pleases. Couple that with Asea's post about financial ignorance, and you've got droves of people making uninformed decisions that cripple them financially. I think the college experience is also being glorified as a YOLO right-of-passage; an experience that can't be missed or you'll regret it. I had my fun when i could, but I was head down ass up most of the time so I could graduate on time with as little debt as possible.

Ultimately, these people had a responsibility to know what they were doing. I have argued this with other people, and I get accused of "you got yours, so screw everyone else, rigth?" Why am I supposed to be happy with helping pay for the mistakes of grown people?

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:With that said, I am not a fan of debt forgiveness but has our country not fabricated the lie that a college degree, no matter what it is, will lead to higher earning and greater success? All colleges, even the state colleges, are not making any effort to advise these kids about their earning potential from their chosen major against the cost to attend; it is all a numbers game for them, so they are not going to discourage anybody from enrolling and taking whatever their heart pleases. Couple that with Asea's post about financial ignorance, and you've got droves of people making uninformed decisions that cripple them financially. I think the college experience is also being glorified as a YOLO right-of-passage; an experience that can't be missed or you'll regret it. I had my fun when i could, but I was head down ass up most of the time so I could graduate on time with as little debt as possible.

Agreed that students should be given counseling on personal finance, but IMO by the time they get to college, it's too late. They need to receive that instruction before they graduate from high school, not after. It's a discussion that should be initiated by parents, but in a lot of circumstances, it's a case of the blind leading the blind.

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:Ultimately, these people had a responsibility to know what they were doing. I have argued this with other people, and I get accused of "you got yours, so screw everyone else, rigth?" Why am I supposed to be happy with helping pay for the mistakes of grown people?

That's the generational differences showing. I went through 4.5 years at a 4 year state college in the mid '70's w/o any scholarships or grants, without borrowing a dime from my parents, and did so solely on the earnings I made during the summers, Xmas break, and random weekends. But that was back when tuition was $166/quarter and it was legal for 16 year old to work 98 hours a week as I did. My personal experience with financing an education doesn't apply in today's world.

I do believe that there needs to be something done to address the cost of higher education, especially to middle class families. But forgiving trillions of dollars of debt is not the way to go.

Ultimately, these people had a responsibility to know what they were doing. I have argued this with other people, and I get accused of "you got yours, so screw everyone else, rigth?" Why am I supposed to be happy with helping pay for the mistakes of grown people?

You're not, and for every whiner that accuses you of thinking "screw everyone else", turn it around on them- "So now that I worked my ass off to repay my student loans, screw me and make me pay off everyone else's, too, right?"

Bonus is that that's the only rational way of looking at the situation.

Ultimately, these people had a responsibility to know what they were doing. I have argued this with other people, and I get accused of "you got yours, so screw everyone else, rigth?" Why am I supposed to be happy with helping pay for the mistakes of grown people?

burrrton wrote:You're not, and for every whiner that accuses you of thinking "screw everyone else", turn it around on them- "So now that I worked my ass off to repay my student loans, screw me and make me pay off everyone else's, too, right?"

Bonus is that that's the only rational way of looking at the situation.

Similar to the argument against reparations for slavery. Why am I supposed to be happy with helping pay for mistakes made by men that lived 150 years ago?

Similar to the argument against reparations for slavery. Why am I supposed to be happy with helping pay for mistakes made by men that lived 150 years ago?

Yeah, and that's the tip of the iceberg of arguments against "reparations". It's morally wrong, pragmatically unworkable, financially disastrous, and wouldn't do a single, damn thing to erase the legacy of slavery.

Similar to the argument against reparations for slavery. Why am I supposed to be happy with helping pay for mistakes made by men that lived 150 years ago?

burrrton wrote:Yeah, and that's the tip of the iceberg of arguments against "reparations". It's morally wrong, pragmatically unworkable, financially disastrous, and wouldn't do a single, damn thing to erase the legacy of slavery.

Of course, liberals will cite that the government compensated Japanese Americans and their next of kin that were relocate in WW2, but the differences between that and reparations for slavery are so numerous and obvious that it's not worth listing them.

burrrton wrote:You're not, and for every whiner that accuses you of thinking "screw everyone else", turn it around on them- "So now that I worked my ass off to repay my student loans, screw me and make me pay off everyone else's, too, right?"

Bonus is that that's the only rational way of looking at the situation.

You're not wrong there, burrrton; though I do wonder why certain people catch breaks and others don't. I was able take advantage of a number of opportunities while in school to cover costs: cooperative education with one of the big railroads where I worked a summer, a spring, a fall, and a summer (delayed my graduation a year though); was playing Madden with my residence director and brought up my desire to be a resident assistant after the selection period was over (I was away co-oping) and later got a call from housing offering me the job circumventing the red tape so my room and board got paid my Junior and Senior years; I'm from the MS Gulf Coast and an estimator for the contractor who replaced the Bay St. Louis post Katrina came into my mom's realty office asking about housing and she name dropped me so I worked all summer for them ($15/hr + 1/2 OT at 60+hrs a week); saved all I could and that got me through most of grad school.

Yeah, I had to work, but they were all god sends, and I was fortunate. So, part of me sympathizes with students that didn't catch the same breaks, but I also know plenty of them just flat out made poor and/or uniformed decisions, perhaps with the best of intentions. Now the damage is done, and here we sit with droves of people swamped in student loan debt unable to contribute to the economy other than trying to get by. So, no, it isn't fair to stick it to those who made it work, but I just don't know what is to be done about it. I mean, what are these people going to do when they want to retire?

Bottom line is until America can show that places like Scandinavia, Germany, and Canada are awful places to live, the push for socialized medicine will one day come to America, perhaps subsidized higher education. When you look across the pond or north and see your neighbors living better than you, you start to wonder why exactly can't we have that system?

I for one am more in support of socialized medical care than before. I'm tired of having my medical care attached to my job with overly expensive offers to the private consumer. If I did not have to worry about health insurance, I'd have a lot more flexibility to take time off or take risks creating a business. You wouldn't have so many people paying for their kid's insurance up to 26 and the like. Socialized medical care would be less of a burden on the working class and create more flexibility. Given that medicine in America already feels very socialized just through corporations, I'm not sure we would lose a whole lot doing it. After studying Germany, Canada, and Scandinavia extensively, they don't seem to be living all that bad with their socialized medical systems. For every horror story about waiting in lines, we have horror stories about health insurance corps refusing service. Each system has its very awful flaws, but one of the biggest is being beholden to your job for affordable medical insurance in America. i'm rather tired of it. I'd like to be able to take time off if I have the money and have an affordable healthcare system.

Yeah, I had to work, but they were all god sends, and I was fortunate.

It's always good to be grateful for the opportunities you've seen in life, but what you described there was hardly a random series of lottery hits. "Working a summer, spring, fall" for a railroad... expressed your desire to work as an RA... worked all summer for a contractor your Mom put you in touch with... saved all you could.

Funny how all the breaks happen to people that do those things, isn't it?

I could give you a similar(ish) tale- I was sick of the profession I was working in, so I went back to school for a different career. A year in I had a prof whose day job was working for a large corporation (in IT). I said if anything ever came up that they needed help with, *anything*, let me know, I was always looking to make some extra money blah blah. He asked if I minded moving server equipment- I said "FCKING A!" Next thing I knew he hired me as a developer (related to the class I was taking from him) and the rest is history.

Again, it's good to be grateful, but make no mistake- your success isn't an accident, Mack.

When you look across the pond or north and see your neighbors living better than you, you start to wonder why exactly can't we have that system?

Because we're 30x their size, infinitely more diverse, infinitely more distributed, and have an effective national defense (a necessity, I hope we can agree).

For every horror story about waiting in lines, we have horror stories about health insurance corps refusing service.

And for every horror story about HI corps refusing service, we have just as many of 'socialized' systems doing the same. Your assumption that all that disappears when .gov is in charge isn't realistic. Think of the national freak-out we'd have if our only national insurer said fat people and smokers went to the back of the line for treatment.

I agree with you that we should look for ways to decouple HI from employers, though. Didn't McCain have some thoughts on that?

RiverDog wrote:
Student debt is insane, but that's not the issue. The issue is Sanders' proposal for the government to assume everyone's debt, from the guy that dropped out of college never following through on his education to the doctor and lawyer that can afford to pay it off but doesn't because the interest rates are so low that it makes more sense just to make the minimum payment. Additionally, Sanders wants to make all higher education free, and he's going to do it by taxing Wall Street. It's a multi TRILLION dollar proposal. His rosy scenario $1.6 trillion estimate, which some observers claim could end being twice that amount, is over twice the size of the entire defense budget for 2019.

This is exactly what scares me. Once they get the 1.6 or Warren gets her 2 cents then they will start hiking that up. It should only be seen as a toe in the door and once that door is cracked, look out.

This is also why I don't disparage anything Trump does. They will take anything and try to wedge it wider and wider. I know that frustrates River quite a bit but I'll never give them the opportunity to wedge any kind of divide and I believe the TRump supporters feel similarly to me.

Once they get the 1.6 or Warren gets her 2 cents then they will start hiking that up. It should only be seen as a toe in the door and once that door is cracked, look out.

And once "student debt" is reduced to *zero*, the tax won't be rescinded- it will be reapplied. Lather, rinse, repeat.

This is also why I don't disparage anything Trump does.

I'll call 'em as I see 'em and take my lumps.

burrrton wrote:Because we're 30x their size, infinitely more diverse, infinitely more distributed, and have an effective national defense (a necessity, I hope we can agree).

That argument fits well for Scandinavia and Canada, but not so well for Germany. We're only roughly four times the size of Germany. Medicare seems to be functioning well enough as a socialized system for 44 million people. Bigger than most of the nations with socialized medicine.

And for every horror story about HI corps refusing service, we have just as many of 'socialized' systems doing the same. Your assumption that all that disappears when .gov is in charge isn't realistic. Think of the national freak-out we'd have if our only national insurer said fat people and smokers went to the back of the line for treatment.

We would have a freak out, but at least we could focus more on diet and have more rotten foods taxed for their detrimental effect on health. Maybe force the food suppliers to provide higher quality options at a better price as they adapt. Diet is by the far the biggest impediment to health in America.

I agree with you that we should look for ways to decouple HI from employers, though. Didn't McCain have some thoughts on that?

That's why I'm not an absolutist on medicare for all or socialized medicine. Mainly I want a more cost effective system that isn't tied to my employer and that maybe does focus some of the costs for poor health on the people that aren't working to be healthy. Insurance as it works right now makes a lot of us pay for the poor health habits of a great many Americans without an ability to force them to pay more into the system by say taxing the Cheetos they love to eat or funneling some of the tobacco tax into the medical system.

We'll see how it goes. I'm hoping they can come up with something better.

Not sure how we went from student debt to health care, but so be it.

The basic problems with our health care system is that the ratio of worker to retiree has been and will continue to get worse for at least the next 30 years. Additionally, with the increase in premiums, many younger people are opting out of coverage as they can't see the reason for pumping several hundred dollars per month into health insurance when most never even visit a doctor and even fewer a hospital.

That's one of the reasons why I've incorporated this fact into my position on immigration. With the birth rate in a decades long decline, we face a shortage of labor in areas all across the employment spectrum, especially in those like construction that require vocational skills. We should be looking at the young, healthy, law abiding, English speaking migrants that have a basic education or have shown the ability to learn as a means to supplement our work force with young, healthy individuals that will contribute to the health care system without taking services from it. It's either that or it will eventually cause our economy to shrink.

I agree that we need to look for ways to improve the health care system, especially in terms of access. I don't mind paying a little more in taxes to prop up our current model, but throwing out the existing one without a solid means of funding is unacceptable IMO.

Aseahawkfan wrote:That's why I'm not an absolutist on medicare for all or socialized medicine. Mainly I want a more cost effective system that isn't tied to my employer and that maybe does focus some of the costs for poor health on the people that aren't working to be healthy. Insurance as it works right now makes a lot of us pay for the poor health habits of a great many Americans without an ability to force them to pay more into the system by say taxing the Cheetos they love to eat or funneling some of the tobacco tax into the medical system.

We'll see how it goes. I'm hoping they can come up with something better.

Medicare for all is a farce. We see how the U.S. Govt. runs the Veteran's Hospitals and health. Do we really want that for everyone? "IF" they treat veterans like they do, what do you think they'll treat regular or low income people like? Don't get me wrong, I use the V.A. here in Boise because it is always rated in the top 3 centers in the U.S. but if I lived in Phoenix or St. Louis, etc, I'd be looking for private sector care.

Aseahawkfan wrote:That's why I'm not an absolutist on medicare for all or socialized medicine. Mainly I want a more cost effective system that isn't tied to my employer and that maybe does focus some of the costs for poor health on the people that aren't working to be healthy. Insurance as it works right now makes a lot of us pay for the poor health habits of a great many Americans without an ability to force them to pay more into the system by say taxing the Cheetos they love to eat or funneling some of the tobacco tax into the medical system.

We'll see how it goes. I'm hoping they can come up with something better.

idhawkman wrote:Medicare for all is a farce. We see how the U.S. Govt. runs the Veteran's Hospitals and health. Do we really want that for everyone? "IF" they treat veterans like they do, what do you think they'll treat regular or low income people like? Don't get me wrong, I use the V.A. here in Boise because it is always rated in the top 3 centers in the U.S. but if I lived in Phoenix or St. Louis, etc, I'd be looking for private sector care.

This is one area where I agree completely with Idahawk. Medicare is an OK system for older people because it's being supported in large part by private sector insurance. Doctors will only accept a certain number of Medicare patients because it doesn't pay as well as private insurance, so they are essentially giving Medicare patients a break. If we were to undergo a major expansion of Medicare and keep the same parameters that exist today, it would force a lot of hospitals and clinics out of business or at least cause them to reduce the number of services they have available, reduce staff, etc.

And let's be clear: Medicare is not free for those that are on it. Part B costs $135.50/month, and the Plan F supplement, the most popular, can range from a low of $50/month for a high deductible plan to around $250/month. Add that up and it's roughly the same as what a common premium is for a group plan offered by employers.

So I want to ask a little different question on the medical care issue. Maybe a whole new post would be more appropriate but I'll stick it here for now.

What do you all think of the President's EO he just signed forcing hospitals and doctors to disclose costs for procedures and allowing patients to "shop" for the best prices?

Medicare seems to be functioning well enough as a socialized system for 44 million people.

That's because it's operating alongside private insurance that effectively covers the losses incurred treating Medicare/Medicaid patients.

We would have a freak out, but at least we could focus more on diet and have more rotten foods taxed for their detrimental effect on health. Maybe force the food suppliers to provide higher quality options at a better price as they adapt. Diet is by the far the biggest impediment to health in America.

True, and agree, but the point is "socialized medicine" doesn't eliminate denials and lack of access to care, and in fact it makes it worse.

Insurance as it works right now makes a lot of us pay for the poor health habits of a great many Americans without an ability to force them to pay more into the system by say taxing the Cheetos they love to eat or funneling some of the tobacco tax into the medical system.

Again, this gets worse, not better, under "socialized medicine".

We'll see how it goes. I'm hoping they can come up with something better.

Hear hear.

What do you all think of the President's EO he just signed forcing hospitals and doctors to disclose costs for procedures and allowing patients to "shop" for the best prices?

I haven't seen that, but in the abstract, anything that puts the consumer more in touch with the costs is a great first step.

What do you all think of the President's EO he just signed forcing hospitals and doctors to disclose costs for procedures and allowing patients to "shop" for the best prices?

burrrton wrote:I haven't seen that, but in the abstract, anything that puts the consumer more in touch with the costs is a great first step.

I thought it was going to be great also until I read River's comments where the wealthy pay for the medicaid folks. From the surface though, paying $6,000 for an xray that you can get for $150 at a competing facility may take the money out of the system that helps pick up the slack for the medicare/medicaid folks. If it does, how quick before those systems collapse?

Is this even a concern or should we care?

idhawkman wrote:So I want to ask a little different question on the medical care issue. Maybe a whole new post would be more appropriate but I'll stick it here for now.

What do you all think of the President's EO he just signed forcing hospitals and doctors to disclose costs for procedures and allowing patients to "shop" for the best prices?

I'm not sure how much people are going to be able to "shop" for hospital services, particularly those that live in rural areas where there's one hospital within a 100 mile radius, and even if they did, their insurance company may not fully cover it as the hospital with the better price could be out of network.

But as burrton said, in general, I agree with any measure that's going to result in more information being provided to the end user. Knowledge is power.

Can you believe that Warren and Sanders voted against this sort of disclosure in a bill that came up in their committee?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/healthcare/no-shows-warren-and-sanders-vote-against-package-to-end-surprise-medical-bills

I guess they figure that if the cost of health care comes down, they can't push socialized health care.

idhawkman wrote:Can you believe that Warren and Sanders voted against this sort of disclosure in a bill that came up in their committee?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/healthcare/no-shows-warren-and-sanders-vote-against-package-to-end-surprise-medical-bills

I guess they figure that if the cost of health care comes down, they can't push socialized health care.

To be fair, Rand Paul, one of the most conservative Republicans in the Senate, voted with Sanders and Warren against the bill. And it's a pretty complicated bill, with the disclosures/surprise medical bills being just one part, so you can't say unequivocally that Sanders and Warren are against "this sort of disclosure".

But I do agree that a good part of Sanders and Warren's no votes was pure politics, as Warren's response indicates.

RiverDog wrote:
To be fair, Rand Paul, one of the most conservative Republicans in the Senate, voted with Sanders and Warren against the bill. And it's a pretty complicated bill, with the disclosures/surprise medical bills being just one part, so you can't say unequivocally that Sanders and Warren are against "this sort of disclosure".

But I do agree that a good part of Sanders and Warren's no votes was pure politics, as Warren's response indicates.

Just to be clear, Rand Paul has never been conservative let alone one of the most conservative. He is Libertarian and always has been just like his dad Ron. He's only called a republican because Libertarians can't get elected.

So you actually think only R's are conservatives? Libertarians are generally categorized as more conservative that Republicans.

c_hawkbob wrote:So you actually think only R's are conservatives? Libertarians are generally categorized as more conservative that Republicans.

No, I said what I meant. Paul is libertarian, he's not conservative.

idhawkman wrote:Medicare for all is a farce. We see how the U.S. Govt. runs the Veteran's Hospitals and health. Do we really want that for everyone? "IF" they treat veterans like they do, what do you think they'll treat regular or low income people like? Don't get me wrong, I use the V.A. here in Boise because it is always rated in the top 3 centers in the U.S. but if I lived in Phoenix or St. Louis, etc, I'd be looking for private sector care.

I was thinking more of a German or Canadian type of system. At the moment I'm not seeing a lot of value from our healthcare system with say boosts in lifespan or improved overall health from 1st world socialized medicine nations. If the results aren't there, then why are we paying so much?

c_hawkbob wrote:So you actually think only R's are conservatives? Libertarians are generally categorized as more conservative that Republicans.

idhawkman wrote:No, I said what I meant. Paul is libertarian, he's not conservative.

Cbob is correct. Libertarians ARE conservatives, at least on fiscal issues. Here's a few rankings that have Rand Paul in the top tier of conservative rankings:

Rubio, Paul, Cruz atop conservative Senate ratings. The three Republican senators running for president came out in a virtual tie of their conservative bona fides, according to the latest annual ranking of Congress by the American Conservative Union. Marco Rubio and Rand Paul both earned a 96-rating out of 100, while Ted Cruz got a 100 score in the ratings closely-watched among conservatives.

https://www.investors.com/politics/colu ... -congress/

Rand Paul is ranked #7 out of 535 Senators and Congressmen in this one:

https://www.conservativereview.com/top- ... ervatives/

Rand Paul is ranked #1 in the Senate in this 2018 rating:

http://acuratings.conservative.org/acu- ... sortable=4

At the moment I'm not seeing a lot of value from our healthcare system with say boosts in lifespan or improved overall health from 1st world socialized medicine nations. If the results aren't there, then why are we paying so much?

Your implication that "the results aren't there" implies the negative, but we have no results- Americans live *completely* different lifestyles than most other nations, with our "poor" ranking among the richest in human history and having obesity as their biggest health issue.

Look, our health system has a lot of room for improvement, but we're doing something right, because the rest of the planet relies on us, and when the rubber hits the road with a serious diagnosis, people with the means go to the Mayo Clinic or Johns Hopkins, not Cuba or the NHS, contrary to what the WHO might lead you to believe.

burrrton wrote:Your implication that "the results aren't there" implies the negative, but we have no results- Americans live *completely* different lifestyles than most other nations, with our "poor" ranking among the richest in human history and having obesity as their biggest health issue.

Look, our health system has a lot of room for improvement, but we're doing something right, because the rest of the planet relies on us, and when the rubber hits the road with a serious diagnosis, people with the means go to the Mayo Clinic or Johns Hopkins, not Cuba or the NHS, contrary to what the WHO might lead you to believe.

Never read that from the WHO.

I know those with means (being the key word) go to John Hopkins or the Mayo Clinic. I never said we didn't have top quality care if you can afford it, key word being afford. But I still don't think we're getting the value for the common citizen that doesn't have the means. It's great wealthy folk from other nations can fly here and get great medical care from some of the top doctors in the world. Is it great for regular working people? I'm not sure it is.

It would be nice to hang on to some of our perks, while improving some of our negatives one of them being affordability. I'd like to explore some methods to get that done. Obamacare was one attempt. It was pretty poor, but it tried. Unfortunately Obamacare overestimated the willingness of private insurance to provide affordable healthcare to the working and middle class. My buddy tried going through their exchanges and couldn't find a reasonable priced option. He was paying $600 a month for bare minimum coverage when his contract company was providing much better insurance prior to Obamacare for a much lower price. He was pretty unhappy. It seemed to work only for the subsidized or fairly well off, but put the squeeze on middle income folks who didn't get insurance from their job.

We'll see. I'm open to other ways of doing things. I'm hoping that venture with Buffett, Bezos, and Dimon can come up with a better way to get it done. I like things like that Rx Card Riverdog was mentioning. That is a good option if you can use the right pharmacies.

I never said we didn't have top quality care if you can afford it, key word being afford. But I still don't think we're getting the value for the common citizen that doesn't have the means.

It's something like 80% of our population rate their treatment (coverage, etc) as good. It's not just the rich that benefit- that's just where you can see the quality separate itself.

In other words, we all live with it and benefit from it, but any doc anywhere can tell you you have a sinus infection and give you amoxicillin- the difference comes when you need some serious stuff addressed, and that's where you can see we're what the world depends on.

Is it great for regular working people? I'm not sure it is.

I'm a "regular working" guy- do you think I'm scratching together whatever I can to fly to Cuba if I get a serious diagnosis, or do you think I'm discussing with my wife whether we can afford flying me back to Minnesota (Mayo) or, hell, UW Medicine, or virtually *any* other respected institution in the US over them or the NHS??

Aseahawkfan wrote:We'll see. I'm open to other ways of doing things. I'm hoping that venture with Buffett, Bezos, and Dimon can come up with a better way to get it done. I like things like that Rx Card Riverdog was mentioning. That is a good option if you can use the right pharmacies.

Costco has a decent prescription drug program available, too, even for pets. The wife once found a HUGE difference in a drug she was taking, over $100 at WalMart (which you would think would be low cost) and under $10 at Costco.

https://www.costco.com/member-prescription-program.html

It really pays to shop around. Safeway with a GoodRx card might be the cheapest on one specific drug while Albertson's with insurance might have a better price on the same drug 3 months later., which I think is part of the problem. People accept the price that their insurance and pharmacy gives them as being the lowest cost. The other problem is access. I live in a metro area of about 300K. People living in small, isolated communities don't have as many pharmacies to choose from as I do.

The other thing is that ALL major drug companies have cost reduction programs available on their Tier 3 drugs, the most expensive, for low income folks that can offer substantial savings, but many people are unaware of them or don't want to bother to fill out the paper work. And there's advocacy groups out there that will assist in helping find the best option, fill out paperwork, etc. Even doctor's offices have been known to offer their assistance.

I am certain that there are better ways to manage our health care system. But I do NOT want to go to another country's model and assume that it would apply to ours as the results could be disastrous, and if we were to go to something else and it didn't work out, the government never abolishes a program and starts over.

I literally cringed in last night's Democratic debates (that my wife insisted on watching) listening to candidate after candidate attack big business, drug companies, wealthy people, and so on, as if they are the root of all evil. Lord help us if they are ever put in charge of our health care system.