PRESIDENT TRUMP

@Cave
No idea what you are talking about, I haven't changed a thing in any quote.
If you sound ridicilous, it's all thanks to yourself.

Solitayre
In other news, Donald Trump says he won't be receiving intelligence briefings because he's 'like, a smart person.'

I can't make this up.

The jokes write themselves, don't they?

author=Dyhalto
Fantastic. As if the FBI and CIA aren't already running their own henhouses, now we have a president who officially condones it.

Seeing as how this buffoon just rejected out of hand the CIA report that shows that the Russians interfered with this election, maybe it's best that Trump isn't in charge of making any real decisions.

I definitely agree that there are a lot of problems with the ACA, but it also has some very good parts. It introduced new regulations that prevent insurance companies from rejecting people for pre-existing conditions as irrelevant as tinnitus, and extended the length of time in which children could be covered under their parent's health insurance to age 26, which was vital in an economy where the pay for new workers is low. It also just increased the amount of people covered by insurance, which means less people going bankrupt because they spent a weekend in the hospital.

But, yes, I definitely would prefer a single-payer plan, or a plan where the gov't has collective bargaining power, and I would prefer regulations on the health & medical care product industry.

I have extremely little trust in the competitive market, because the way the health industry is shaped, the costs are destined to be high, which means insurance will be expensive. There is very little ability for an individual to be picky with the cost of their health care, especially in a dire situation. There are many other countries where similar or better care costs less for the average taxpayer, costs less for the consumer, and costs less for the hospital. Medical devices, hospital stays, and prescription drugs are inordinately expensive here. Many drugs that cost $60 here go for $5 elsewhere, and in the past decade we've seen hundreds of drug prices go up at their owner's leisure. Hospitals are forced to overcharge regular patients & the taxpayer to cover the uninsured who show up in the emergency room for issues that could be treated much less expensively with a regular appointment.

There's a massive list of issues with the health care system and corporations in the U.S. which leads to incredibly expensive insurance, and I don't believe more competitive insurance markets will be enough. We need regulations on drug patent holders so they cannot spike prices for a drug by 500% overnight (which either hits the consumer directly, or raises the cost of insurance). We need collective bargaining so that providers of medical equipment can't overcharge for MRI machines, catheters, IV stands, etc. We need more people to be covered by insurance so they don't go to the ER and force the hospital to spend money inefficiently.

If the average person doesn't have to worry about bankruptcy due to an unpredictable health problem, we'll see more new small businesses, more self-employed creators, and more freedom in the labor market, as workers will have the ability to choose a job based on more competitive factors, and not just the fear of being uninsured.

author=harmonic
There's always some spoon-fed justification for extremely non-liberal things like the ACA and the bank bailouts. Like... congrats "liberals". You're shills for insurance companies and massive banks. What happened to, you know, being liberal?

TARP (The bank Bailout) was passed under Bush. More Democrats than Republicans voted in favor of it, true, but the Dodd-Frank Consumer Protection Act passed under Obama a couple years later reduced the amount given to the banks by a lot, and this was definitely opposed by Republicans and largely still is. It is inaccurate to claim Democrats just rubber stamped the bailouts and shrugged. It was a bad situation for everyone.

I think most people view it as kind of necessary? But I wouldn't want it to happen again which is why I'd want regulations to stay in place. Trump will likely remove these regulations, which might boost the stock market for a while but is likely to have dangerous ramifications in the long term.

As for the ACA, my position has always been that it is dumb, but removing it without a viable replacement is dumber.

Wasn't there an episode of Friends where Joey loses his healthcare? I mean if that's any indication, it seems like a really bad thing and I see how the fear of being uninsured would triumph over a really fun job or a job that would be suited to you.
That's really bad...

I've always kind of thought a hybrid system would work best? A basic level of care for everyone who needs it but if you have money and want to pay for higher quality care you can.

No it's not perfect but what system is perfect?

author=harmonic
The main issue with single payer is that it removes the customer from the provider. The government becomes the customer and the patient becomes the product. As a product, you have almost no freedom or choice, and the economics of it has little to do with what's best for you.

I'd say that's the result we have now anyway. The welfare of the customer is absolutely ignored when a drug company spikes their brand-name prices, or when medical suppliers charge twice as much here as they do in any other country. Competitive insurance won't solve that; the individual has no control over what drug they're prescribed or what brand of medical supply their doctor uses, and the public has very little bargaining power, because when it comes down your health and your life, a person will buy at whatever price. Health care doesn't follow basic free market rules - there is no option to go without, and so the demand is inelastic. A drug company can charge whatever they like with no recourse, and people will buy that drug if it's the only one available.

As much as I'd rather not leave it in the gov't hands, as an public institution they are far more capable of collective bargaining for fair, respectable prices. A politician, in theory, has to answer to their citizens. In the health care market, a corporation has to answer to no one.

I'll admit that I -really- don't know how our health care system down here works in detail, but everyone is given a choice to go private if they want to - and it's basically for things like upgraded care if they're ever thrown in hospital and the like - but everyone is allowed to have affordable health care. I do believe there's some kind of money bracket involved though (under a certain amount earned, iirc) in dictating who goes on Medicare, but from what I gather it's a pretty decent amount and even then health care is pretty much there for everyone no matter their monetary income bracket. Just means a difference in savings, iirc.

For a quick example, last time I went to the doctor it cost me nothing for a half-hour visit (my doc gets chatty and is pretty friendly) where I was given a check over and got a script. My script was filled for $6 (some medication I had to have for a minor chest infection) and within an hour I was back in bed, not having to worry about any medical bills beyond that.

When my sister went and had her baby, there was a minor, nominal fee for the hospital stay but that was just food and it didn't really cost much even though she was in there a few days (births are covered pretty much completely).


I get that Australia does have a lot less people in it, but I'd point out that that also means we get a lot less tax money to cover costs, so I'd say it'd definitely be something that America could cover if they'd a mind to do so. Especially if they took some of that military spending down a tad in order to give to the people who need help a bit more.


As for what we hear about Trump and such on our TVs - apparently he's being stupid about Air Force 1? I mean, I could understand taking money from some of the areas where it's not needed, but I dunno man, AF1 seems to be one of those things you DON'T wanna skimp on, money-wise.