PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[Northendzone]

given trump's passion for "defending" himself on twitter, I'd have to assume it is only a matter of time before he joins CP to promote himself

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

That may be, but it is also because other nations aren't willing to put forth the effort or money to do so, while simultaneously reaping the benefit(s) of the protection and power that the US provides.

Here is a listing of "the principal defence forums, arrangements and agreements" that Canada has with the US:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/news/arti...nship/hob7hd8s

How much do you think it would cost Canada to run even a portion of this stuff on their own? And do you think that Canada could realistically fund national health care for its citizens at the same level that it does now while also paying for its increased, go-it-alone, defense obligations?

Or perhaps we should just look at NATO spending. As noted in this article (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...ding-1.3664272), the funding benchmark for member countries is 2% of GDP. What does Canada contribute? 0.99% of GDP. Again, do you think that Canada could realistically fund national health care for its citizens at the same level that it does now while also making the expected 2% of GDP contribution to NATO?

You are suggesting that the US can't have a single payer health care system because of defense spending?

Or that they can't pay for poor people's health care because of war?

As I understand it, and feel free to correct me on this, because I am on my phone and can't look it up, the cost per person treated for single payer systems is less than for the US system. The US system costs less, per capita, because people go untreated.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

And that is the risk that one takes.



Which is why I said that, under a basic health care plan, "I'd support free birth control, of all types."



Which is why I agree that, under a basic health care plan, abortion would be an option available to those who did not "voluntarily engage in activities that lead to conception."



That may be, but it is also because other nations aren't willing to put forth the effort or money to do so, while simultaneously reaping the benefit(s) of the protection and power that the US provides.

Here is a listing of "the principal defence forums, arrangements and agreements" that Canada has with the US:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/news/arti...nship/hob7hd8s

How much do you think it would cost Canada to run even a portion of this stuff on their own? And do you think that Canada could realistically fund national health care for its citizens at the same level that it does now while also paying for its increased, go-it-alone, defense obligations?

Or perhaps we should just look at NATO spending. As noted in this article (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...ding-1.3664272), the funding benchmark for member countries is 2% of GDP. What does Canada contribute? 0.99% of GDP. Again, do you think that Canada could realistically fund national health care for its citizens at the same level that it does now while also making the expected 2% of GDP contribution to NATO?

And if it could, then why doesn't it?



No. What I'm proposing is to make people personally responsible for their voluntary choices.

In your defence vs health arguement you are missing the fact that the US(private and public combined) has the highest per capita spending on health care in the world. The US chooses to spend it to not cover everyone.

As far as personal choice goes you don't choose your family you are born into and economic circumstances that a child grows up in is highly correlated with life outcomes. So from a policy standpoint any good policy should address then initial inequality.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by Rathji

You are suggesting that the US can't have a single payer health care system because of defense spending?

Or that they can't pay for poor people's health care because of war?

I'm suggesting that the US could potentially pay for national health care, without raising overall taxes from the level that they are today, by cutting overall military spending and cease funding/subsidizing other nations' defense programs.

Originally Posted by GGG

In your defence vs health arguement you are missing the fact that the US(private and public combined) has the highest per capita spending on health care in the world. The US chooses to spend it to not cover everyone.

Well, yes, and one reason for the high spending is the lack of drug price negotiation by Medicare. The US government should not, in my view, be responsible for the majority of drug maker's R&D costs and profits---cut the drug prices in the US and let other nation's citizens pay a larger portion of drug maker's R&D costs and profits.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

I'm suggesting that the US could potentially pay for national health care, without raising overall taxes from the level that they are today, by cutting overall military spending and cease funding/subsidizing other nations' defense programs.

If they are reducing the requirement on people for insurance, since some of it is covered under your national health care suggestion, what is the problem with increasing taxes to pay for it?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Trump following through on exactly what he promised the people who elected him he would do.

He has already broken major campaign promises:

http://www.newsweek.com/keeping-scor...romises-526391

Trump may be setting a record for broken promises

http://www.chron.com/news/politics/a...s-10623216.php

Trump's promises before and after the election

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37982000

[Nufy]

I can't wait for the first book / documentary on Trumps Presidency...

It could be titled..."Trump Trolls a Nation...and they fall for it."

[GirlySports]

is the US healthcare system just unfixable and universal healthcare impossible? What would have to happen?

I think about Canada and if we didn't have healthcare already, after 10 years of Harper now Trudeau comes in on his white horse and proposes healthcare what would be the reaction, would it even be possible or would Alberta be screaming?

Should Obama in 2008 with a new mandate and control of both house have pushed through a more complete healthcare system instead of having multiple options?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by troutman

He has already broken major campaign promises:

http://www.newsweek.com/keeping-scor...romises-526391

Trump may be setting a record for broken promises

http://www.chron.com/news/politics/a...s-10623216.php

Trump's promises before and after the election

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37982000

Just part of his "drain the swamp/man of the people" agenda.

Making promises and trying to keep some of them is such a product of the broken system. America needs a leader who will make promises and keep NONE of them, while placating the poor idiots who still believe he's "keeping promises" and "sticking it to the system!" with all his fresh tweets about magazines and celebrities he doesn't like.

He's a true maverick. Any sheep who don't think so are just slaves to the lamestream media!

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

is the US healthcare system just unfixable and universal healthcare impossible? What would have to happen?

I think about Canada and if we didn't have healthcare already, after 10 years of Harper now Trudeau comes in on his white horse and proposes healthcare what would be the reaction, would it even be possible or would Alberta be screaming?

Should Obama in 2008 with a new mandate and control of both house have pushed through a more complete healthcare system instead of having multiple options?

Universal healthcare in the US is pretty much a no-go because of the money from the insurance lobby. Universal healthcare is pretty easy to setup if they want to. All they need to do is pick a single insurance company to act as the government's provider and then force all services through them.

Obamacare actually had opportunity to do just this. The Feds took over AIG in 2008 when they bailed them out. They owned the asset. AIG had a portfolio in healthcare insurance and could have been the provider of choice, just by directive. Didn't happen because of too much money in the insurance lobby.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by Rathji

If they are reducing the requirement on people for insurance, since some of it is covered under your national health care suggestion, what is the problem with increasing taxes to pay for it?

I pay enough (too much, really) in federal income taxes already and I am adamantly opposed to essentially only having one group of taxpayers pay (any? additional?) taxes to provide health insurance coverage for a select group of (non-) taxpayers.

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Should Obama in 2008 with a new mandate and control of both house have pushed through a more complete healthcare system instead of having multiple options?

In my view, Obama should have pushed through Medicare for all, and have the private insurance companies compete for supplemental Medicare insurance policies across all age groups. Then Congress could work on the Medicare reimbursement issue. Perhaps increased funding could come from a slightly higher Medicare tax imposed on everyone (which would be imposed on both earned and unearned income sources) and cost-cuts from other governmental departments.

Doctors would likely squawk about the whole plan, but they I suspect that they could be placated by offering some sort of tort reform deal which, say, caps their maximum out-of-pocket liability in exchange for a government-run payout scheme to harmed patients (maybe something like workers compensation) and revocation of their license after X number of incidents.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

I pay enough (too much, really) in federal income taxes already and I am adamantly opposed to essentially only having one group of taxpayers pay (any? additional?) taxes to provide health insurance coverage for a select group of (non-) taxpayers.

Okay, but that is fine. If it reduced your requirements for insurance, and lowered your costs, would an equal tax increase not be appropriate?

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Okay, but that is fine. If it reduced your requirements for insurance, and lowered your costs, would an equal tax increase not be appropriate?

I'm not sure that I understand your question.

I don't think that repealing the ACA, or instituting Medicare for all, or anything similar to that would reduce my requirements for insurance, and I'm unclear how implementing any of the foregoing would lower my costs either.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

I pay enough (too much, really) in federal income taxes already and I am adamantly opposed to essentially only having one group of taxpayers pay (any? additional?) taxes to provide health insurance coverage for a select group of (non-) taxpayers.

This pretty much sums up a Republicans views on helping anyone else.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

This pretty much sums up a Republicans views on helping anyone else.

Because all tax dollars go to charitable causes and the only way to help people is through Government assistance.

[rubecube]

I forgot to weigh in on the whole celebrity business, but I do love how the side that complains the loudest about celebrities getting involved in politics have in their recent history elected two actors as governors, one to the presidency, a reality star to the presidency, and a pro wrestler as governor.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

I'm not sure that I understand your question.

I don't think that repealing the ACA, or instituting Medicare for all, or anything similar to that would reduce my requirements for insurance, and I'm unclear how implementing any of the foregoing would lower my costs either.

I am assuming if basic medical coverage for everyone would be insituted, that you would no longer need that portion of your insurance. ie plans would change and go down in cost, to reflect the fact that no one needed them.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I forgot to weigh in on the whole celebrity business, but I do love how the side that complains the loudest about celebrities getting involved in politics have in their recent history elected two actors as governors, one to the presidency, a reality star to the to the presidency, and a pro wrestler as governor.

Yeah, Conservatives hate celebrities that use public forums to speak their mind on things they shouldn't, well, except for Donald.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by New Era

Universal healthcare in the US is pretty much a no-go because of the money from the insurance lobby. Universal healthcare is pretty easy to setup if they want to. All they need to do is pick a single insurance company to act as the government's provider and then force all services through them.

Obamacare actually had opportunity to do just this. The Feds took over AIG in 2008 when they bailed them out. They owned the asset. AIG had a portfolio in healthcare insurance and could have been the provider of choice, just by directive. Didn't happen because of too much money in the insurance lobby.

And that is why US health care is among the most expensive in the world on a per capita basis...every service needs to have a margin built in.

The business model if ****ed up if you want good services for the citizens as a whole.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I am assuming if basic medical coverage for everyone would be insituted, that you would no longer need that portion of your insurance. ie plans would change and go down in cost, to reflect the fact that no one needed them.

Oh, well, yes, I suppose that could be a possibility.

I'm not sure why the incremental reduction in premium costs (presuming that such would occur) to reflect the reduction in insurance coverage should give rise to a corresponding tax increase, however, particularly as applied to higher-income taxpayers.