HawkShack.com

I'm sure Romney knew he was going to pay a heavy, heavy (if not fatal) price politically by not allowing the WH to claim a unanimous acquittal by their own party. My question is, do you think there was any calculation on Mit's part, or is he sincere in what he says about his duty to his faith and his country? I do allow the possibility for both to be true, but I'm leaning more towards the latter.

I'm both surprised and impressed. I also wonder how many chickensh*t republicans secretly agree with him.

I-5 wrote:I'm sure Romney knew he was going to pay a heavy, heavy (if not fatal) price politically by not allowing the WH to claim a unanimous acquittal by their own party. My question is, do you think there was any calculation on Mit's part, or is he sincere in what he says about his duty to his faith and his country? I do allow the possibility for both to be true, but I'm leaning more towards the latter.

I'm both surprised and impressed. I also wonder how many chickensh*t republicans secretly agree with him.

I think he was sincere and that there was very little if any political calculation on his part. Romney is from as deep a red state as there is, won is Senate seat by 62% and is not up for re-election until 2024. He's not beholden to Trump like so many other R's that owe their political lives to him. Plus he's a former nominee, and at 68, there's a chance that this could be his last rodeo. He doesn't owe Trump or the Republican party anything. Under those circumstances, it's pretty easy to go against your party and your President if you feel morally obligated as Romney obviously does. Whether or not he would have fallen in line behind the leadership if he were 20 years younger with higher ambitions, I couldn't say. I haven't followed his career that closely.

As far as how many R's secretly agreed with him is anyone's guess. If you want to believe Hawktalk, it's half of the Republican Senate. In my opinion, even though I disagree with them, my gut tells me that most of them don't think what Trump did was right but that his actions didn't rise to the level of a high crime. After all, as the Dems taught us 20 years ago, perjury isn't an impeachable offense even though people regularly go to jail for it. That sets the bar pretty damn high.

I think he was sincere. Trump can't do anything real to Romney. Romney is a super rich guy himself that stopped worrying about money a long time ago. He went with what he thought was right. Good on him. He has mostly distanced himself from the political scumbaggery in general. Most I learned bout Romney was during his presidential run. He pretty much installed an Obamacare like health system in Massachusetts. Romney has always been a centrist business conservative.

RiverDog wrote:I think he was sincere and that there was very little if any political calculation on his part. Romney is from as deep a red state as there is, won is Senate seat by 62% and is not up for re-election until 2024. He's not beholden to Trump like so many other R's that owe their political lives to him. Plus he's a former nominee, and at 68, there's a chance that this could be his last rodeo. He doesn't owe Trump or the Republican party anything. Under those circumstances, it's pretty easy to go against your party and your President if you feel morally obligated as Romney obviously does. Whether or not he would have fallen in line behind the leadership if he were 20 years younger with higher ambitions, I couldn't say. I haven't followed his career that closely.

As far as how many R's secretly agreed with him is anyone's guess. If you want to believe Hawktalk, it's half of the Republican Senate. In my opinion, even though I disagree with them, my gut tells me that most of them don't think what Trump did was right but that his actions didn't rise to the level of a high crime. After all, as the Dems taught us 20 years ago, perjury isn't an impeachable offense even though people regularly go to jail for it. That sets the bar pretty damn high.

The crap people in government get away with is always astonishing. You only really understand it when you see that when you make the laws, you have plenty of people helping you circumvent them if the right agenda is being served.

I think he was sincere. Trump can't do anything real to Romney. Romney is a super rich guy himself that stopped worrying about money a long time ago. He went with what he thought was right. Good on him. He has mostly distanced himself from the political scumbaggery in general. Most I learned bout Romney was during his presidential run. He pretty much installed an Obamacare like health system in Massachusetts. Romney has always been a centrist business conservative.

Pretty much agree with every word, asf. Imagine that!

Not surprising, I don't believe Romney at all. No other time can you find him using his religion in making a political decision. Basically, I think he's always been a RINO and his vote was to placate the RINO Never Trumper republicans. His reasoning for the decision was even flawed so it was no surprise he did this. I don't think Romney will ever get over Trump winning the presidency when he couldn't and then having Trump pass over him for Secretary of State. Those wounds won't heal for a person like Romney. Oh well... Can't worry about it since Romney really isn't a conservative and never has been.

I do hear though that the Utah legislature is looking at recalling him as their senator or some other admonishment. Not sure what is actually available to them to do though.

He wasn't using his religion, he was using his morality. The Mormon church is corrupt, he evidently is not.

idhawkman wrote:Not surprising, I don't believe Romney at all. No other time can you find him using his religion in making a political decision. Basically, I think he's always been a RINO and his vote was to placate the RINO Never Trumper republicans. His reasoning for the decision was even flawed so it was no surprise he did this. I don't think Romney will ever get over Trump winning the presidency when he couldn't and then having Trump pass over him for Secretary of State. Those wounds won't heal for a person like Romney. Oh well... Can't worry about it since Romney really isn't a conservative and never has been.

As Cbob pointed out, I don't think you can say that the thought process Romney used as rooted in his religious beliefs. Once he came to his conclusion, it's likely that his beliefs helped him muster the courage to stand firm on his conviction rather than being pressured to vote according to his party's desires, but taking him for his word, he looked at the evidence and determined that Trump was guilty and wasn't going to let his opinion be swayed by anyone else. That type of internal reflection is experienced by both atheists as well as devout worshipers of a deity.

idhawkman wrote:I do hear though that the Utah legislature is looking at recalling him as their senator or some other admonishment. Not sure what is actually available to them to do though.

No, they're not. You're overstating the reaction. Sure, there might be a pol or two that is butt hurt by Romney's vote to convict, but that's always the case in these types of controversies.

Utah House Speaker Brad Wilson (R) said that following a closed caucus meeting, Republican lawmakers had determined they would not move forward with either the recall or censure resolution and would instead push a citation thanking Trump for “all the great things he’s done for the state of Utah,” the Deseret News reported.

“Many people disagree with the conclusion Sen. Romney came to, and I think what we can kind of conclude from this conversation is we’re going to agree to disagree,” Wilson said, according to the newspaper. “We understand the thoughtful process Sen. Romney went through. Many people disagree with it, and we think it’s probably time to move on.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc ... all-romney

It wouldn't surprise me if part of Romney's motivation was big old FU to Trump. Can Idhawkman really say much about it considering the president he supports does and says whatever to exact petty vengeance? Trump is one of the pettiest men I've ever seen. He inspires pettiness and small-minded aggression in others. No surprise there.

idhawkman wrote:Not surprising, I don't believe Romney at all. No other time can you find him using his religion in making a political decision. Basically, I think he's always been a RINO and his vote was to placate the RINO Never Trumper republicans. His reasoning for the decision was even flawed so it was no surprise he did this. I don't think Romney will ever get over Trump winning the presidency when he couldn't and then having Trump pass over him for Secretary of State. Those wounds won't heal for a person like Romney. Oh well... Can't worry about it since Romney really isn't a conservative and never has been.

I do hear though that the Utah legislature is looking at recalling him as their senator or some other admonishment. Not sure what is actually available to them to do though.

LMAO of course you dont believe Romney. Welcome back BTW .
So you think he faked the tears? the painful expression? You think the 2012 nominee and lifelong respected party member wanted to do that, potentially lose everything? He didn't put America here. Trump's illegal acts did.It's offensive frankly for any Trump supporter to question the veracity of any other person's actions.
I believe Romney. He's an honest dignified man who has truly governed agencies and people,accomplished 2 term governor, a truly successful businessman who rescued bankrupt companies and saved jobs. He rescued the Salt Lake City olympics for no charge. He been married to one wife for 5 decades and has a beautiful family with 25 grandchildren. There has never been a hint of a scandal.No Pussy grabbing, no prostitutes in moscow. No foreign collusion or impeachments .

Hes not a RINO. Hes a republican, a dignified member of the party of lincoln and reagan, a throwback to what the former party used to be before the orange baboon came along and put you and about 45% of the population in a trance. That in turn scares R politicians that know much better than you what kind of president Trump is, personally hate him and resent his constant scandals and would have leapt at president pence if they could keep their jobs.

But you and your ilk stop them. Its you that destroyed the constitution, not the Susan Collins of the world. Your not republicans. Stop calling yourselves that. Its an insult to the word. The only good thing you are doing is exposing the utter moral bankruptcy of the *republican* congress in both houses. Speaking of which he's actually being treated with kid gloves in the senate and the more Trump behaves in a lawless manner daily the better Mitt will look.

Growing up as a holy roller in the A of G church and later as a pastoral major I was always taught Mormons were in a cult.Boy am I eating crow big time. Mitt Romney has more godliness and character in him than Trump or his apologists will ever have no matter how many times they raise their hands and say holy holy on sunday morning.

Aseahawkfan wrote:It wouldn't surprise me if part of Romney's motivation was big old FU to Trump. Can Idhawkman really say much about it considering the president he supports does and says whatever to exact petty vengeance? Trump is one of the pettiest men I've ever seen. He inspires pettiness and small-minded aggression in others. No surprise there.

Although Romney has been a consistent critic of Trump's, I have my doubts that he was motivated by petty revenge. During the 4 years following his loss to Obama, he never came out and criticized him in an undignified way, certainly not to the same degree that Hillary has been to Trump and members of her own party.

RiverDog wrote:Although Romney has been a consistent critic of Trump's, I have my doubts that he was motivated by petty revenge. During the 4 years following his loss to Obama, he never came out and criticized him in an undignified way, certainly not to the same degree that Hillary has been to Trump and members of her own party.

Romney isn't really a low class guy like Trump. I figure Romney did it because he thought it was the right thing to do with a small FU to Trump as well.

RiverDog wrote:Although Romney has been a consistent critic of Trump's, I have my doubts that he was motivated by petty revenge. During the 4 years following his loss to Obama, he never came out and criticized him in an undignified way, certainly not to the same degree that Hillary has been to Trump and members of her own party.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Romney isn't really a low class guy like Trump. I figure Romney did it because he thought it was the right thing to do with a small FU to Trump as well.

I can agree with that. Romney is human like the rest of us, so there's the possibility that at least part of his decision was an emotional response. I know that it would have evoked a big FU from me had I been in his position. But I do get the impression that he's an objective thinker and wouldn't be afraid to have him on my jury should I ever be in the position of having others render judgement on my actions.

Not to drag my personal BS too deeply into this but I do get the F U. I made some tree removal decisions in the best interest of the course I was running that were career altering but I wouldnt change it. I knew what I was doing was right. The Northwest green section agronomists wrote a report saying what i did was right and it needed to continue for quite a while but I had an owner who didn't think I knew a damn thing after 33 years in the industry . Now 2 years after I'm gone they are crying the blues wishing they had me back. Sorry but Im 20 miles away making another course awesome and I'm going to take as much of your business away as I can .

Hell yeah it feels good to say F you but it wasn't why I did the things I did in the first place. I did what had to happen knowing it wouldnt be popular. Do what's right and let the chips fall. Don't die of a thousand paper cuts going down the wrong path.What goes around comes around . People who take the high road are always better off in the end.
Love me some Mitt.

Hawktawk wrote:Hell yeah it feels good to say F you but it wasn't why I did the things I did in the first place. I did what had to happen knowing it wouldnt be popular. Do what's right and let the chips fall. Don't die of a thousand paper cuts going down the wrong path.What goes around comes around . People who take the high road are always better off in the end.
Love me some Mitt.

I'm not necessarily talking about morals, but there are times that you have to compromise what you think is right with that which your peers feel is right and meet them halfway.

Case in point is the current status of the Democratic Party. They are so hung up on maintaining their ideological purity that they refuse to table those ideas that are not going to help them win November, so by doing in their minds what they "think is right", they're likely to lose the 2020 election to Donald Trump and set their cause back another 4 years.

RiverDog wrote:Case in point is the current status of the Democratic Party. They are so hung up on maintaining their ideological purity that they refuse to table those ideas that are not going to help them win November, so by doing in their minds what they "think is right", they're likely to lose the 2020 election to Donald Trump and set their cause back another 4 years.

4 years? According to Biden it will be lost forever!

idhawkman wrote:4 years? According to Biden it will be lost forever!

Extremist thinking been going on both sides for ages. I heard a lot of people saying Bush Jr. would ruin the Republican Party forever due to his wars and corruptions. Look at that, we had another Republican President. I heard Clinton would ruin it for the Democrats. Lo and behold, we had another Democratic President. People thought we would turn super liberal after Obama, lo and behold they voted in a president with a very conservative agenda. All this talk of ends and destruction is more poppycock. Americans are forgetful. If the right person with very good speaking ability selling them on a vision of America they can get behind, they'll vote for him or her regardless of party. It's a pipedream people believe when they think things are done.

At the moment, I don't see the right Democrat to beat Trump. The candidate with likely the best chance is Sanders. He's radical enough and passionate enough he might just whip up the voting frenzy that would be needed to unseat Trump. After Trump's hit job on Biden and his son, I'm doubtful Biden can beat Trump head to head now.

idhawkman wrote:4 years? According to Biden it will be lost forever!

Aseahawkfan wrote:Extremist thinking been going on both sides for ages. I heard a lot of people saying Bush Jr. would ruin the Republican Party forever due to his wars and corruptions. Look at that, we had another Republican President. I heard Clinton would ruin it for the Democrats. Lo and behold, we had another Democratic President. People thought we would turn super liberal after Obama, lo and behold they voted in a president with a very conservative agenda. All this talk of ends and destruction is more poppycock. Americans are forgetful. If the right person with very good speaking ability selling them on a vision of America they can get behind, they'll vote for him or her regardless of party. It's a pipedream people believe when they think things are done.

The only problem with that thinking is that once a government program gets started, it's impossible to reverse or eliminate it. Once the genie of socialized medicine is out of the bottle, no one will be able to put it back in. Take a look at Obama Care. Despite controlling both chambers of Congress, the Executive Branch, and with more conservatives than liberals on SCOTUS, the Republicans still couldn't kill it.

Aseahawkfan wrote:At the moment, I don't see the right Democrat to beat Trump. The candidate with likely the best chance is Sanders. He's radical enough and passionate enough he might just whip up the voting frenzy that would be needed to unseat Trump. After Trump's hit job on Biden and his son, I'm doubtful Biden can beat Trump head to head now.

I'm not going to be so foolish as to predict an outcome this far out. At this time in 2016, I didn't give Trump a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination let alone the general election. I just saw a poll in Texas, a state that by almost anyone's math that Trump has to win, where he's up by just 2% over Sanders.

RiverDog wrote:I'm not going to be so foolish as to predict an outcome this far out. At this time in 2016, I didn't give Trump a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination let alone the general election. I just saw a poll in Texas, a state that by almost anyone's math that Trump has to win, where he's up by just 2% over Sanders.

As you know, I'm ok with some sort of nationalized healthcare. Been watching so many people get screwed over on healthcare by private health insurance, that I don't see how socialized healthcare could be worse. At my own job right now, we have at least two people being overcharged for insurance and one person whose insurance was canceled even though they have all the right paperwork on file.

I'm still not sure why you love private healthcare so much and think it is so great. Not even sure what real proof you have that it is better than public healthcare. You keep bringing up the specter of no funding for new procedures and medications, while that has never stopped healthcare advancement in any nation. Even nations with socialized healthcare, they are still investing and looking for ways to improve healthcare.

Do you really hate medicare that much? Is it that bad? Most of what I've head is it operates well enough.

It seems to me we've socialized through a bunch of big healthcare companies that don't really offer much in terms of price sensitivity or excellent customer service as it is. Not sure why you paint it as these big private insurers act much differently than a soclalized systems. Private employers seem to be doing more and more to reduce their healthcare expenditures on employees by reducing the quality of insurance rather than increasing it requiring the government to step in in the first place.

If the private system were working as well as you seem to think it is, we wouldn't even be having people asking for a public option. Many people are getting tired of all the BS problems with private healthcare and all the ways companies are seeking to subvert having to pay for it like lowering the quality of programs, limiting full time workers, and the games I see at my companies where they're overcharging employees hoping they don't catch it or outright messed up and not fixing it.

Sorry, man. We have problems with private health care. I really don't see how for all intents and purposes private health insurance as it is in America doesn't operate a great deal like a socialized system. I've talked to people on state healthcare or medicare, they seem to use their insurance exactly the same way I use my private health insurance. It appears they pay roughly the same for the same things as well.

I don't think the sky will fall like you do with a public option. I think that you are hanging on to past arguments, while not really analyzing how our private system works. The American Health Insurance system operates far more utilities at the moment than it does a pure free market business like tech where a handful of huge private companies do their business in certain regions.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I'm still not sure why you love private healthcare so much and think it is so great. Not even sure what real proof you have that it is better than public healthcare. You keep bringing up the specter of no funding for new procedures and medications, while that has never stopped healthcare advancement in any nation. Even nations with socialized healthcare, they are still investing and looking for ways to improve healthcare.

I don't necessarily 'love' private health care. I oppose government health care. Big difference.

Private health care has it's flaws. The most egregious one currently is the cost of insulin. It's a common drug so they can't claim that they're having to recover R&D costs. Diabetics pay as little as $25/year for it in Italy but it's costing over $1,000 in the US. That's not acceptable.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Do you really hate medicare that much? Is it that bad? Most of what I've head is it operates well enough.

I don't 'hate' Medicare. My position is that it won't work if we go to Medicare for All. Doctors will only accept X number of Medicare patients because Medicare doesn't pay as good as private health insurance, so essentially private insurance is subsidizing Medicare. If we put everybody on a Medicare style insurance, hospitals will close and doctors will go out of practice, particularly those in rural areas, and we'll be hoarding everyone into a mass where you have to wait months to get an appointment and then only with a doctor that's the low bidder on a government contract. That's my fear.

Aseahawkfan wrote:f the private system were working as well as you seem to think it is, we wouldn't even be having people asking for a public option.

I am not against having a public option. That's what Medicaid is. If people prefer Medicaid or Obamacare to private insurance, then go for it.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Sorry, man. We have problems with private health care.

Agreed. I just don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I don't think the sky will fall like you do with a public option. I think that you are hanging on to past arguments, while not really analyzing how our private system works

My wife and I are both 65, retired, and on Medicare. My former employer has provided us with a very good retiree medical program that gives the two of us $6400/year in health care credits that we can use on anything the IRS determines is a health related expense, like insurance premiums and prescription drugs. The retiree medical program was the critical piece in my retirement planning. I paid $1000+/month in pre-65 insurance premiums for 18 months under their retiree medical plan as I retired at age 63.5. I could have opted to take COBRA for half the cost for those 18 months but I would not have qualified for my employer's retiree medical plan as I had to be enrolled in the pre-65 plan starting the day I retired in order to be eligible for the post-65 plan that pays the health care credits. Those credits will last the rest of my life or until they cease funding the program, which they can do at any time and without notice.

If we go to Medicare for All, it almost certainly will involve a huge tax on employers and they will obviously pull the plug on their retiree medical program as it's completely voluntary on their part. Neither my wife and I or my former employer are alone in this predicament.

I've played by the rules my whole life, stayed out of jail and off drugs, paid my own way through college, worked my arse off pounding the floor on graveyard shifts, sacrificing weekends and tolerated interruptions when I was away from work for over 40 years, saved my money and did a good job planning my retirement. I'm not even having to draw my social security and hopefully won't until age 70, taking me out to 132% of my full retirement amount.

Now here comes Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. They want to take care of me.

RiverDog wrote:My wife and I are both 65, retired, and on Medicare. My former employer has provided us with a very good retiree medical program that gives the two of us $6400/year in health care credits that we can use on anything the IRS determines is a health related expense, like insurance premiums and prescription drugs. The retiree medical program was the critical piece in my retirement planning. I paid $1000+/month in pre-65 insurance premiums for 18 months under their retiree medical plan as I retired at age 63.5. I could have opted to take COBRA for half the cost for those 18 months but I would not have qualified for my employer's retiree medical plan as I had to be enrolled in the pre-65 plan starting the day I retired in order to be eligible for the post-65 plan that pays the health care credits. Those credits will last the rest of my life or until they cease funding the program, which they can do at any time and without notice.

If we go to Medicare for All, it almost certainly will involve a huge tax on employers and they will obviously pull the plug on their retiree medical program as it's completely voluntary on their part. Neither my wife and I or my former employer are alone in this predicament.

I've played by the rules my whole life, stayed out of jail and off drugs, paid my own way through college, worked my arse off pounding the floor on graveyard shifts, sacrificing weekends and tolerated interruptions when I was away from work for over 40 years, saved my money and did a good job planning my retirement. I'm not even having to draw my social security and hopefully won't until age 70, taking me out to 132% of my full retirement amount.

Now here comes Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. They want to take care of me.

Ill be where you are in many respects in a few more years and the last thing I want is Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders ruining my life. Wait I take that back the absolute worst thing that could happen is 4 more years of Donald Trump unhinged and unfettered. Sanders or Warren would be Trump's most plausible path to victory as well. But no congress Republican or democrat will adopt their agenda at this point. The bottom bottom line when it comes to entitlements RD is NOBODY IS TAKING CARE OF YOUR SS or Medicare. Dems are generally more likely to support it, Rs are more likely to support cuts in it to make it "solvent". Trump did neither for 3 years and suddenly his new budget calls for SS cuts, Medicare cuts, cuts to the CDC in the middle of the Coronavirus Of course he's asking for another huge military budget increase, it outstrips every other domestic spending program by hundreds of billions.

RD nobody is taking care of SS, the banks and markets are scary right now. Us old geezers gotta hope we make it through the rest of the way before it all comes unhinged

Hawktawk wrote:Ill be where you are in many respects in a few more years and the last thing I want is Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders ruining my life. Wait I take that back the absolute worst thing that could happen is 4 more years of Donald Trump unhinged and unfettered. Sanders or Warren would be Trump's most plausible path to victory as well. But no congress Republican or democrat will adopt their agenda at this point. The bottom bottom line when it comes to entitlements RD is NOBODY IS TAKING CARE OF YOUR SS or Medicare. Dems are generally more likely to support it, Rs are more likely to support cuts in it to make it "solvent". Trump did neither for 3 years and suddenly his new budget calls for SS cuts, Medicare cuts, cuts to the CDC in the middle of the Coronavirus Of course he's asking for another huge military budget increase, it outstrips every other domestic spending program by hundreds of billions.

RD nobody is taking care of SS, the banks and markets are scary right now. Us old geezers gotta hope we make it through the rest of the way before it all comes unhinged

I understand that it's not likely for either Sanders or Warren, if elected, to be able to put into action their grandiose ideas, at least not right away. They would have huge hurdles to clear, not just with Congress but the judicial branch as well. Their wealth tax proposal is almost certainly to be ruled unconstitutional by a conservative SCOTUS.

But that's not how I approach things when deciding who to vote for. I'll vote as if what they propose to do happens the day after the election. I won't ever vote for Trump, mainly on moral grounds, and I won't vote for Sanders or Warren, mainly on fiscal policy. Klobuchar or Buttigieg, maybe. Bloomberg I'll absolutely vote for.

We'll see what happens. I'm not sure America is ready for Scandinavian/European style government. We still have too much of a commitment to our military control of the world thus requiring a huge military budget.

Even though I come from a staunchly democrat family background, and I live in Canada with access to quality single payer healthcare, I'm also not ready for a Bernie presidency until he shows hard numbers, or close to it. His believers scare me just as much as Trump's believers.

I'm behind Klobuchar, Pete, and Biden. In that order. If Bloomberg has a chance, I'd pick him over Bernie, too.

I-5 wrote:Even though I come from a staunchly democrat family background, and I live in Canada with access to quality single payer healthcare, I'm also not ready for a Bernie presidency until he shows hard numbers, or close to it. His believers scare me just as much as Trump's believers.

I'm behind Klobuchar, Pete, and Biden. In that order. If Bloomberg has a chance, I'd pick him over Bernie, too.

What concerns me the most about the move to a single payer system is a decline in the quality of care. The fact is that Medicare doesn't pay doctors and hospitals nearly as well as private insurance, so essentially private insurance is subsidizing people like me that are on Medicare through higher rates for working people on group insurance. My fear is that if they simply add everyone to Medicare without some major revamping of their cost structure, there will be a lot of doctors, clinics, and hospitals that will go out of business, specifically the low volume ones in small or medium size cities, and force everyone into large hospitals and clinics in the big cities so they can use economies of scale to offset their decline in reveune. Doctors will have to see more patients to pay the bills, resulting in longer wait times to get in to see one and shorter and less efficient visits/care as each doctor will have more cases to juggle. Same goes for other medical vendors and suppliers that indirectly get their money from Medicare.

Will it be cheaper? Probably. But will we get better care?

Sanders supporters scare me, but not as much as Trump supporters do. His following is almost like a cult where they'll believe anything he says no matter how preposterous. I haven't seen the same degree of fanaticism with Bernie's supporters like I do with Trump's, but then again, I haven't seen as much of them as I have Trump followers.

RiverDog wrote:What concerns me the most about the move to a single payer system is a decline in the quality of care. The fact is that Medicare doesn't pay doctors and hospitals nearly as well as private insurance, so essentially private insurance is subsidizing people like me that are on Medicare through higher rates for working people on group insurance. My fear is that if they simply add everyone to Medicare without some major revamping of their cost structure, there will be a lot of doctors, clinics, and hospitals that will go out of business, specifically the low volume ones in small or medium size cities, and force everyone into large hospitals and clinics in the big cities so they can use economies of scale to offset their decline in reveune. Doctors will have to see more patients to pay the bills, resulting in longer wait times to get in to see one and shorter and less efficient visits/care as each doctor will have more cases to juggle. Same goes for other medical vendors and suppliers that indirectly get their money from Medicare.

Will it be cheaper? Probably. But will we get better care?

Sanders supporters scare me, but not as much as Trump supporters do. His following is almost like a cult where they'll believe anything he says no matter how preposterous. I haven't seen the same degree of fanaticism with Bernie's supporters like I do with Trump's, but then again, I haven't seen as much of them as I have Trump followers.

How you going to define better care? I listed life expectancy and health metrics from other nations that were better or inline with America and you dismissed those. How you going to rate healthcare then?

You have a guy on the forum that has lived in America and Canada. Have him break down what healthcare is like in a single payer system like Canada.

I don't know why you don't read a bunch on it. I don't mean downside articles. I mean read up on healthcare in place like Japan, Germany, Canada, and England. It's not as terrible as you think comparatively.

I really think Americans have been trained to believe public healthcare is bad and will destroy the economy as a matter of politics versus facts. You know me, man. I would not be supporting a public option if I thought it would provide you with worse healthcare and destroy the economy. I was much like you for years until I started doing extensive research on healthcare in single payer nations as well as reading on medical and drug development. I don't think a single payer govenment supported system would be as bad as it is made out to be. It isn't in many other 1st world nations.

What I don't like is this "healthcare as a right" idea. It's not a right. We can't enslave doctors or nurses or force people to work in the medical professions. I don't want to see the nation bankrupt providing some "right to medical care." At the same time single payer healthcare seems affordable, improves our ability to ensure the health of our productive population, decouples insurance from employment allowing people to take more risks creating businesses or taking time off work, and should provide a fairly equal level of healthcare to our population.

I no longer see a lot of downside to an organized public healthcare system. I see a lot of upside in management of information, cost of care, and administration of healthcare nation and world wide allowing for easier use of healthcare when traveling between states and abroad.

A public healthcare option has a lot of upside, unforeseen upside that supports American ideals and capitalism.

Aseahawkfan wrote:How you going to define better care? I listed life expectancy and health metrics from other nations that were better or inline with America and you dismissed those. How you going to rate healthcare then?

Yeah, life expectancy isn't a good metric. The 'quality' of anything is hard to measure. In my industry, we used to measure it by how many complaints we received per unit sold, but that's not always accurate, either, as there's nothing to compare it to but the previous year.

One way that I would look at judging quality is what the average number of patients each doctor serves. The more patients a doctor has, the lesser his ability to deliver quality care to each individual. The more balls a doctor is asked to juggle, the higher the risk that he drops one. We start paying doctors less per patient as we do with Medicare and it's inevitable that they're going to respond by taking on more patients.

Another metric would be how long it takes to see a doctor, a specialist, or have a procedure done. I've heard these horror stories coming out of Canada where there are months long waits to get an MRI, something that's very commonplace here, and after doing a quick Google, I see that the average wait time in Canada is 10.6 weeks while here in the US it's 2-4 weeks. That's 2.5 to 5 times the wait time they experience vs. what we do here.

Waiting for treatment has become a defining characteristic of Canadian health care...The results of this year’s (2018) survey indicate that despite provincial strategies to reduce wait times and high levels of health expenditure, it is clear that patients in Canada continue to wait too long to receive medically necessary treatment.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies ... anada-2018

Additionally, Canadians are fortunate in that they have good ole Uncle Sam within a couple hours drive of about 80% of their population that acts as a safety net for anyone that happens to fall through their system. We would not have such a luxury.

The ability to fund these ambitious programs is another concern. We spend 3.2% of our GDP on defense. Japan spends 0.9%, Germany 1.2%, Canada 1.3%. The only country on your list that doesn't spend less than half the percent of GDP that we do is the UK at 1.8%.

Our system isn't perfect and I'm open to other means of improving it. But I'm dead set against Medicare for All.

RiverDog wrote:Yeah, life expectancy isn't a good metric. The 'quality' of anything is hard to measure. In my industry, we used to measure it by how many complaints we received per unit sold, but that's not always accurate, either, as there's nothing to compare it to but the previous year.

I gave you other metrics like surgical success rates, infant mortality, and other measures of healthcare efficiency. Doesn't seem to matter.

One way that I would look at judging quality is what the average number of patients each doctor serves. The more patients a doctor has, the lesser his ability to deliver quality care to each individual. The more balls a doctor is asked to juggle, the higher the risk that he drops one. We start paying doctors less per patient as we do with Medicare and it's inevitable that they're going to respond by taking on more patients.

You don't think a for profit doctor makes more money per patient served? Profits are higher the more patients you serve. That could easily happen here as well.

Another metric would be how long it takes to see a doctor, a specialist, or have a procedure done. I've heard these horror stories coming out of Canada where there are months long waits to get an MRI, and doing a Google, I see that the average wait time in Canada is 10.6 weeks while here in the US it's 2-4 weeks.

Waiting for treatment has become a defining characteristic of Canadian health care.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies ... anada-2018

Now the wait times argument. Been hearing this one for a while. Yet it doesn't seem to have a dramatic effect on life expectancy or other measures of healthcare.

Additionally, Canadians are fortunate in that they have good ole Uncle Sam within a couple hours drive of about 80% of their population that acts as a safety net for anyone that happens to fall through their system. We would not have such a luxury.

Europe doesn't. Doesn't seem to affect them. Many Americans go to Mexico and other nations for cheaper healthcare. Medical tourism is on the rise. Why? Because getting things done in America is expensive. Americans used to go to Canada for medicines until our government outlawed it to protect our drug companies. Total horsecrap move to screw over our own people.

The ability to fund these ambitious programs is another concern. We spend 3.2% of our GDP on defense. Japan spends 0.9%, Germany 1.2%, Canada 1.3%. The only country on your list that doesn't spend less than half the percent of GDP that we do is the UK at 1.8%.

More arguments as to why we should lower defense spending and get back to spending on helping Americans.

Our system isn't perfect and I'm open to other means of improving it. But I'm dead set against Medicare for All.

Not sure why you're deadset against it. Seems more fear than fact at this point. Maybe it's because you had the same job the whole time and never had to worry about insurance while working there.

As someone still working I would love healthcare separate from my employment and affordable. I am absolutely tired of having to switch health insurance whenever the company feels like and having to jump through new hoops to get medical procedures and medicines with each new health insurance provider as the company looks to save money. That whole rigmarole these companies do now is getting annoying.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Not sure why you're deadset against it. Seems more fear than fact at this point.

The "fact" that you are overlooking is the fact that both my wife and I are satisfied with the quality and cost of the care that currently receive. Why would I want to change?

[quote="Riverdog]The "fact" that you are overlooking is the fact that both my wife and I are satisfied with the quality and cost of the care that currently receive. Why would I want to change?[/quote]

So it's more personal. That's not a fact, but your feeling on the matter, you and your wife.

Facts are measurable and data driven. Personal satisfaction is a data point in a measure of anecdotal evidence, anecdotal evidence is the weakest evidence out there. Not attacking your position, but it isn't evidence based.

I think people should base their support on a public option by looking at the various systems out there in other 1st world nations and compare their efficacy and cost compared to ours. As far as I'm concerned companies have brought this on themselves with their constant attempts to lower the cost of health insurance by trying to go as cheap as possible, employing more part time people, automating, and generally treating the work force as disposable and unimportant. Humans want to survive. If employers are using very inhumane tactics to reduce their labor costs, what choice do they have to but to turn to government to sort it out?

Aseahawkfan wrote:So it's more personal. That's not a fact, but your feeling on the matter, you and your wife.

Facts are measurable and data driven. Personal satisfaction is a data point in a measure of anecdotal evidence, anecdotal evidence is the weakest evidence out there. Not attacking your position, but it isn't evidence based.

I think people should base their support on a public option by looking at the various systems out there in other 1st world nations and compare their efficacy and cost compared to ours. As far as I'm concerned companies have brought this on themselves with their constant attempts to lower the cost of health insurance by trying to go as cheap as possible, employing more part time people, automating, and generally treating the work force as disposable and unimportant. Humans want to survive. If employers are using very inhumane tactics to reduce their labor costs, what choice do they have to but to turn to government to sort it out?

There are two types of facts: Qualitative and quantitative. What you're talking about is quantitative. My satisfaction with the quality of my health care is every much of a fact as 2+2=4, just a different kind of fact called a qualitative fact that although measurable (rate your satisfaction level from 1-10, with 1 being the lowest and 10 being the highest), no quantified value was offered. "It's raining outside" is a qualitative fact. "It's rained 2 tenths of an inch" makes it a quantitative fact.

It's about time to agree to disagree. I have and will continue to read and learn on the subject as it seems like it's being forced down our throats and I may have no choice in the matter. But at this point, I'm pretty rigid in my opinion as you seem to be with yours.

Qualitative is opinion. It's a fact that you believe a thing, but you believing that thing is your opinion.

c_hawkbob wrote:Qualitative is opinion. It's a fact that you believe a thing, but you believing that thing is your opinion.

Qualitative facts are factors that are difficult or impossible to measure. If you say "a football game is going on", you are stating a fact but the statement is impossible to measure or quantify.

If I say "I have an opinion on the matter" I am stating a fact, just that I can't weigh or measure it.

RiverDog wrote:Qualitative facts are factors that are difficult or impossible to measure. If you say "a football game is going on", you are stating a fact but the statement is impossible to measure or quantify.

That's not true. It's an easy thing to quantify, either there is a football game going on or there isn't.

If I say "I have an opinion on the matter" I am stating a fact, just that I can't weigh or measure it.

Maybe not but I can, the fact that you expressed an opinion quantifies that you actually do in fact have one.

That doesn't make the opinion fact.

RiverDog wrote:Qualitative facts are factors that are difficult or impossible to measure. If you say "a football game is going on", you are stating a fact but the statement is impossible to measure or quantify.

c_hawkbob wrote:That's not true. It's an easy thing to quantify, either there is a football game going on or there isn't.

What you're talking about is verification, not quantification. It's easy to tell, or verify, that there's a football game going on, and it is indeed is a qualitative fact, but it's impossible to measure.

RiverDog wrote:There are two types of facts: Qualitative and quantitative. What you're talking about is quantitative. My satisfaction with the quality of my health care is every much of a fact as 2+2=4, just a different kind of fact called a qualitative fact that although measurable (rate your satisfaction level from 1-10, with 1 being the lowest and 10 being the highest), no quantified value was offered. "It's raining outside" is a qualitative fact. "It's rained 2 tenths of an inch" makes it a quantitative fact.

It's about time to agree to disagree. I have and will continue to read and learn on the subject as it seems like it's being forced down our throats and I may have no choice in the matter. But at this point, I'm pretty rigid in my opinion as you seem to be with yours.

As I stated a data point in anecdotal evidence at best or a question on a survey. It certainly wouldn't be anything you could measure to prove your opinion. Qualitative analysis is the weakest form of evidence, little more than an "I feel better" type of statement. I don't rely on it as it can be driven by irrational fear or emotion based on fearmongering or similar appeals to emotion.

As I stated, not an attack on you as we all have our biases and emotionally driven reactions, even myself. But it isn't evidence that would be useful in determining how well a medical system works. People were scared when we moved away from kings because they felt better about having a king, but once we moved now they would probably fear to move to anything else. Change always has a fearful element to it, even though change is a constant. Humans never seem to get used to it. It may be why it is best that we older humans die off, so the young ones can make the necessary changes for survival in a changing world.

I believe very much that a move to a public option would better support capitalism in nearly every way but if you are the owner of a health insurance company or a lot of the medical business. I have stated multiple times why I believe that. I am a staunch capitalist supporting a public healthcare option because given the current state of capitalism I feel a public option would better support the labor force and the ability of companies to manage it as well as maintain their health and reduce stress that leads to many other problems.

Don't worry. The process should be slow. I expect Trump to win in November. These Dems are too weak and divided right now.

RiverDog wrote:Qualitative facts are factors that are difficult or impossible to measure. If you say "a football game is going on", you are stating a fact but the statement is impossible to measure or quantify.

c_hawkbob wrote:That's not true. It's an easy thing to quantify, either there is a football game going on or there isn't.

RiverDog wrote:What you're talking about is verification, not quantification. It's easy to tell, or verify, that there's a football game going on, and it is indeed is a qualitative fact, but it's impossible to measure.

You're making no sense. Verification is quantification.

c_hawkbob wrote:You're making no sense. Verification is quantification.

No, it's not. To 'quantify' means to measure, limit, gauge, or explicitly express. ''Verification' simply means to determine the truth or accuracy of something, not necessarily by quantifying or measurable means, such as a visual observation or logical deduction.

Real life example from my working years:

"I verified our metal detector by passing a wrench through it and it rejected it" is simply a verification by observation without a quantifiable test result.

"I verified our metal detector by passing a .2 oz stainless steel test probe through it and it rejected it ten times out of ten" is a verification through a quantifiable test that can be measured.

Look up the two terms if you don't believe me. There's a difference.

I sincerely apologize for beating this into the ground, but I thought of another example. In my college years as a business administration major, we had classes that us students referred to as Stat I, Stat II, and Stat III, statistics classes with a lot of math. Their 'official' names were Quantitative Analysis I, II, and III. We worked on problems like determining if a set of data fit a straight line, exponential, or parabolic curve.

That's different than say a biology class where most of their experiments involves non quantifiable methods, like testing a dead frog's nervous system by giving it an electrical shock to see if it's muscles contract. That's not a quantifiable, measurable test like we did in my business classes but it is a verification through an observation.