Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

(02-13-2017, 04:51 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2017, 01:44 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Classic, you are a Republican voter, and your ideas are classic Republican. If you are not registered that way, then perhaps that means you can be independent of those policies if you want to be. I am not a Democrat, so I guess the same applies to me. You can hope!

I hate to tell ya, but these days, Xers have a more Democratic voting record than Boomers. And we are not wealthier than Europe, except perhaps that we have more rich people.

In 2012, the voting trends of the middle class was about average for the nation:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/22/news/eco...-election/

Americans feel that the Republican Party favors the rich:
http://www.citylab.com/work/2016/02/pew-...at/459768/

Huh?   "Xers have a more Democratic voting record than Boomers:
Perhaps, but to paraphrase Bill Cinton, Depends on what the meaning of "Xers" and "Boomers" is.
The economy does better under Democrats:

<snip graph to save Dan some disk space. >

(What Democrats and liberals like me realize, is the simple principle that we all do better when the government has policies that benefit people and help lift them out of poverty. It's true that those who get benefits, tend to vote Democratic; at least that's true in blue states. But many others simply realize that this approach works better than just leaving people to fend for themselves), as Bill Clinton said.

Was the stuff in () the exact quote?  minds wanner know.


Giving advantages to the rich that they already have anyway, in hopes their wealth will trickle-down to the rest of us, does not work. And voting for this policy is not in anyone's interests.

Yes, that is valid. It gets stuck in pouches and upward directing orifices. That is where the trickle-up goes. You get one pick or it's -down or -up.

If you refer to me, that shows your interest in what I say.

Sometimes Eric, that is correct.

Classic'Xer
I prefer to keep my political options open. Plus, I'm pro choice for now anyway. The Democratic party is like the Catholic Church, it has to many rules and restrictions for me to even consider becoming a member. Let's see, I have to bow down to woman who wear vagina hats. I would have to suck up to black leaders that I don't like personally and I couldn't hang around with the regular black people that I do like personally. I would have to go along with whatever rich people like Al Gore or Hilary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi or John Kerry's wife believes to be most important issues that need to be addressed. I can't offend anyone or say anything that might offend someone unless it's a Republican or a Republican voter. Fuck that! I prefer to keep my freedom.

1. Yes, and I want to be able to have free use of Clintons',Pelosi,Kerry, one of either of the couple. The aircraft toes from Oklahoma City airport to Las Vegas. They also have to pay for my food, dog kennel fees,lodging and $10,000/diem gambling money.   If I win, I keep the winnings as well.   That's a very good idea, Classic'Xer. I also don't like hypocritical famous people either. That way feel free to also add folks like Bill Gates,George Soros,and Mark Zuckerberg. So feel free to add to your list of donors there.

2. Pussy Hats. I'd add nagged by.

3. Political Correctness.  Yes, I agree, fuck that. You can also ignore "triggering".  Just listen to their rants until you can get 2 statements they say contradict each other. It won't take long.  Just yell the two statements followed by fucking hypocrite. Just say the 2 statements said snowfake , folloed by the fucking hypocrite a few times. That's the "melt slowflake" password is. It's a feature, not a bug wrt said snowfake.

Why are you complaining to me about a blue issue? There's not enough federal funds trickling down for the rest of us is a blue government issue. Bitching about me, bitching at me, blaming me and calling me names isn't going to resolve the issue that blues are having with blue government and the Democratic party in general. I fend for myself. I've been fending for myself and my family for years. What the problem with the blue folks? Didn't anyone teach them how to fend for themselves or the value of being able to fend for themselves?  


OK....


Eric, I haven't placed you on ignore or ignored you.
.....................................................................OK........................................................................Uh, no.  Looks like Eric triggered you Bro.

(02-13-2017, 01:51 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2017, 01:41 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2017, 12:57 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]They were almost the same to begin with.

Politically speaking, Obama care was a very one sided bill. Prepare yourself, your probably going to lose a Senator from Minnesota.

I don't know what "politically speaking" means. In their content, Obamacare and Romneycare were virtually the same. That's the point. The Republicans opposed it for purely political reasons. They do well by opposing Democratic presidents no matter what. The Democrats need to adopt the same policy, it appears. I don't think they'll go that far off the deep end like the GOP does. But I hope they will respond to their base and oppose Trump's bad policies more often.

Obamacare was a Democratic bill. Romney care was a Democratic/Republican bill. The Democrats were going to pass a piece of shit bill and the Republicans didn't want to have anything to do with it because they understood that it was going to fail. Hell, I understood that it was going to fail.

(02-13-2017, 06:10 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2017, 01:51 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2017, 01:41 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2017, 12:57 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]They were almost the same to begin with.

Politically speaking, Obama care was a very one sided bill. Prepare yourself, your probably going to lose a Senator from Minnesota.

I don't know what "politically speaking" means. In their content, Obamacare and Romneycare were virtually the same. That's the point. The Republicans opposed it for purely political reasons. They do well by opposing Democratic presidents no matter what. The Democrats need to adopt the same policy, it appears. I don't think they'll go that far off the deep end like the GOP does. But I hope they will respond to their base and oppose Trump's bad policies more often.

Obamacare was a Democratic bill. Romney care was a Democratic/Republican bill. The Democrats were going to pass a piece of shit bill and the Republicans didn't want to have anything to do with it because they understood that it was going to fail. Hell, I understood that it was going to fail.

But the laws were the same. The Democrats passed a Republican bill, and the Republicans all opposed it just because it was proposed by Democrats.

(02-13-2017, 06:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2017, 06:10 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2017, 01:51 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2017, 01:41 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2017, 12:57 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]They were almost the same to begin with.

Politically speaking, Obama care was a very one sided bill. Prepare yourself, your probably going to lose a Senator from Minnesota.

I don't know what "politically speaking" means. In their content, Obamacare and Romneycare were virtually the same. That's the point. The Republicans opposed it for purely political reasons. They do well by opposing Democratic presidents no matter what. The Democrats need to adopt the same policy, it appears. I don't think they'll go that far off the deep end like the GOP does. But I hope they will respond to their base and oppose Trump's bad policies more often.

Obamacare was a Democratic bill. Romney care was a Democratic/Republican bill. The Democrats were going to pass a piece of shit bill and the Republicans didn't want to have anything to do with it because they understood that it was going to fail. Hell, I understood that it was going to fail.

But the laws were the same. The Democrats passed a Republican bill, and the Republicans all opposed it just because it was proposed by Democrats.

The laws weren't the same. The Democrats passed their own bill. The Republicans were basically BANNED from the negotiations. I'm sorry to say, I cannot believe how stupid/ignorant you are and how stupid the other blues are to allow you to continue representing them. So, how many blues like you are there?

(02-13-2017, 08:39 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2017, 08:24 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]I'm thinking that there might be some conservative solutions to problems in liberal programs. It would be reasonable to have some empty-calorie foods like sodas, chips, cookies, snack cakes, and candies removed from food-stamp eligibility (with possible compensation with some essential non-food items like detergents, toiletries, and perhaps pet foods -- keeping a pet dog or cat is a healthy practice). Reform of ACA might include tort reform and heavy taxes on alcoholic beverages and cancerweed products.

Medicaid might have the condition of some requirement of community service or enrollment in job training for able-bodied people.

The problem with the Right and ACA is that the Right wants to kill it altogether.

I like how you are thinking here. These are practical perspectives that could help drive us in the direction of unity instead of the ongoing acrimony.

Or, it could move us even further apart.

(02-13-2017, 11:29 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2017, 06:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2017, 06:10 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2017, 01:51 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2017, 01:41 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Politically speaking, Obama care was a very one sided bill. Prepare yourself, your probably going to lose a Senator from Minnesota.

I don't know what "politically speaking" means. In their content, Obamacare and Romneycare were virtually the same. That's the point. The Republicans opposed it for purely political reasons. They do well by opposing Democratic presidents no matter what. The Democrats need to adopt the same policy, it appears. I don't think they'll go that far off the deep end like the GOP does. But I hope they will respond to their base and oppose Trump's bad policies more often.

Obamacare was a Democratic bill. Romney care was a Democratic/Republican bill. The Democrats were going to pass a piece of shit bill and the Republicans didn't want to have anything to do with it because they understood that it was going to fail. Hell, I understood that it was going to fail.

But the laws were the same. The Democrats passed a Republican bill, and the Republicans all opposed it just because it was proposed by Democrats.

The laws weren't the same. The Democrats passed their own bill. The Republicans were basically BANNED from the negotiations. I'm sorry to say, I cannot believe how stupid/ignorant you are and how stupid the other blues are to allow you to continue representing them. So, how many blues like you are there?

The laws were the same. The Democrats had to pass their own bill simply because the Republicans were determined to block it just because it was a Democratic bill.

Sorry, I don't think any "blues" consider me their "representative."

Thanks for the compliment though. Sometimes I get labelled like that at various places by my debating opponents; usually not, though.

(02-13-2017, 11:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2017, 11:29 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2017, 06:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2017, 06:10 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2017, 01:51 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know what "politically speaking" means. In their content, Obamacare and Romneycare were virtually the same. That's the point. The Republicans opposed it for purely political reasons. They do well by opposing Democratic presidents no matter what. The Democrats need to adopt the same policy, it appears. I don't think they'll go that far off the deep end like the GOP does. But I hope they will respond to their base and oppose Trump's bad policies more often.

Obamacare was a Democratic bill. Romney care was a Democratic/Republican bill. The Democrats were going to pass a piece of shit bill and the Republicans didn't want to have anything to do with it because they understood that it was going to fail. Hell, I understood that it was going to fail.

But the laws were the same. The Democrats passed a Republican bill, and the Republicans all opposed it just because it was proposed by Democrats.

The laws weren't the same. The Democrats passed their own bill. The Republicans were basically BANNED from the negotiations. I'm sorry to say, I cannot believe how stupid/ignorant you are and how stupid the other blues are to allow you to continue representing them. So, how many blues like you are there?

The laws were the same. The Democrats had to pass their own bill simply because the Republicans were determined to block it just because it was a Democratic bill.

Sorry, I don't think any "blues" consider me their "representative."

Thanks for the compliment though. Sometimes I get labelled like that at various places by my debating opponents; usually not, though.

So, which bill is the one the Republicans blocked?  Is the the Original Massachusetts Bill which was a Republican idea,  or
did the bill that got blocked by the Republicans not written by Republicans.

Oh yeah, Does getting labeled like a "representative" if ...stuff...make you a representative in general for "blues". I think a better answer is just a 0 or a 1. Either you are a representative you're not.

Only you can come up with a good case for yes, I'm a representative because ........

I'm sure you can use all thing astrology and you'd get a very high rating if there were a poll with all members and a
question like: Does Eric represent me here on the forum.  Only folks who are politically blue , answer.

(02-14-2017, 12:41 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2017, 11:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2017, 11:29 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2017, 06:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2017, 06:10 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Obamacare was a Democratic bill. Romney care was a Democratic/Republican bill. The Democrats were going to pass a piece of shit bill and the Republicans didn't want to have anything to do with it because they understood that it was going to fail. Hell, I understood that it was going to fail.

But the laws were the same. The Democrats passed a Republican bill, and the Republicans all opposed it just because it was proposed by Democrats.

The laws weren't the same. The Democrats passed their own bill. The Republicans were basically BANNED from the negotiations. I'm sorry to say, I cannot believe how stupid/ignorant you are and how stupid the other blues are to allow you to continue representing them. So, how many blues like you are there?

The laws were the same. The Democrats had to pass their own bill simply because the Republicans were determined to block it just because it was a Democratic bill.

Sorry, I don't think any "blues" consider me their "representative."

Thanks for the compliment though. Sometimes I get labelled like that at various places by my debating opponents; usually not, though.

So, which bill is the one the Republicans blocked?  Is the the Original Massachusetts Bill which was a Republican idea,  or
did the bill that got blocked by the Republicans not written by Republicans.

No, Romney care, the original bill, was passed in Massachusetts. The Republicans could not block the Republican idea taken up by Obama (the ACA), but they all voted against it. Democrats had the majority in congress then, and Republicans by then had become fanatics who just want to block everything they can proposed by Democrats. So they have remained. But now they are the majority in congress.

(02-14-2017, 12:49 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2017, 12:41 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2017, 11:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2017, 11:29 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2017, 06:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]But the laws were the same. The Democrats passed a Republican bill, and the Republicans all opposed it just because it was proposed by Democrats.

The laws weren't the same. The Democrats passed their own bill. The Republicans were basically BANNED from the negotiations. I'm sorry to say, I cannot believe how stupid/ignorant you are and how stupid the other blues are to allow you to continue representing them. So, how many blues like you are there?

The laws were the same. The Democrats had to pass their own bill simply because the Republicans were determined to block it just because it was a Democratic bill.

Sorry, I don't think any "blues" consider me their "representative."

Thanks for the compliment though. Sometimes I get labelled like that at various places by my debating opponents; usually not, though.

So, which bill is the one the Republicans blocked?  Is the the Original Massachusetts Bill which was a Republican idea,  or
did the bill that got blocked by the Republicans not written by Republicans.

No, Romney care, the original bill, was passed in Massachusetts. The Republicans could not block the Republican idea taken up by Obama (the ACA), but they all voted against it. Democrats had the majority in congress then, and Republicans by then had become fanatics who just want to block everything they can proposed by Democrats. So they have remained. But now they are the majority in congress.

Obama care was passed to provide free or highly subsidized healthcare for the poor and the working poor. The free market principles and other cost lowering measures like tort reform and so forth were completely left out of Obama. The Democratic party basically fucked everyone who had healthcare by not addressing the cost of healthcare for those who already had it. The Democrats don't ever speak to us. The Democrats tend speak to their own and that's it.

(02-14-2017, 09:07 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Obama care was passed to provide free or highly subsidized healthcare for the poor and the working poor. The free market principles and other cost lowering measures like tort reform and so forth were completely left out of Obama. The Democratic party basically fucked everyone who had healthcare by not addressing the cost of healthcare for those who already had it. The Democrats don't ever speak to us. The Democrats tend speak to their own and that's it.

This is a lie. There were plenty of cost-lowering stuff, it was blocked by the Republicans along with Joe Lieberman and Max Baucus.

(02-13-2017, 11:28 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-11-2017, 10:04 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm seeing another pattern developing.  If the Republicans try to hold a town hall meeting, they find it loaded with hostiles.  The main stream media is inclined to report it as the public is angry at the Trump government.  The Republicans answer with an accusation that a whole bunch of out of town provocateurs have been hired.  As I haven't seen any real evidence of the latter, it's kind of hard to guess which side is creating more false news.

Net result?  The acrimony is getting worse.

There is real humor in a situation right of the Tea Party playbook being turned on the first Tea Party President and his Tea Party supporters in Congress.  Of course, the Tea Party learned all this from Sal Alinsky, who they have demonized non-stop for the last decade.  Cycles within cycles. 

"Plans within plans..."

(02-15-2017, 07:33 AM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2017, 09:07 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Obama care was passed to provide free or highly subsidized healthcare for the poor and the working poor. The free market principles and other cost lowering measures like tort reform and so forth were completely left out of Obama. The Democratic party basically fucked everyone who had healthcare by not addressing the cost of healthcare for those who already had it. The Democrats don't ever speak to us. The Democrats tend speak to their own and that's it.

This is a lie. There were plenty of cost-lowering stuff, it was blocked by the Republicans along with Joe Lieberman and Max Baucus.

The bill wasn't blocked. The bill was passed. Where was/is all the cost lowering stuff? I didn't see any. I didn't have free (nation wide) access to affordable healthcare. I had limited access to healthcare and I was forced to pay for coverage that I didn't need like birth control pills and so forth.

(02-15-2017, 12:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-15-2017, 07:33 AM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2017, 09:07 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Obama care was passed to provide free or highly subsidized healthcare for the poor and the working poor. The free market principles and other cost lowering measures like tort reform and so forth were completely left out of Obama. The Democratic party basically fucked everyone who had healthcare by not addressing the cost of healthcare for those who already had it. The Democrats don't ever speak to us. The Democrats tend speak to their own and that's it.

This is a lie. There were plenty of cost-lowering stuff, it was blocked by the Republicans along with Joe Lieberman and Max Baucus.

The bill wasn't blocked. The bill was passed. Where was/is all the cost lowering stuff? I didn't see any. I didn't have free (nation wide) access to affordable healthcare. I had limited access to healthcare and I was forced to pay for coverage that I didn't need like birth control pills and so forth.

Yes.  There is a basic difference in the philosophy of the two parties.  A young male with a well paying job with decent benefits is going to prefer the Republican Plan.  If you don't need health care to speak of, the Republicans provide just the health care you want.  I think I went a 20 year stretch in my prime, working for the Military Industrial Complex, full benefits, and the largest health care call I made during that time was for a hyperextended knee acquired playing ultimate frisbee.  If that's your life style, "I've got mine, up yours" seems like a wonderful plan. 

Not so wonderful if you're the one responsible for carrying the babies, if one is an aging diabetic, if one is juggling multiple no benefit part time jobs, etc...

There might be two extremes in health care.  One can go single payer, government funded, universal health care.  One can go pay as you go.  Obviously a healthy young male is more apt to want to pay as you go.  Any other scheme, one way or another, the healthy young male is paying into a pool of funds that others will draw more from than him.  The single payer government funded universal scheme might be fair in the sense that everyone kicks in according to some supposedly fair tax scheme.  No matter what, though, the poor abused complaining healthy young male ends up kicking in more money than he would under a pay for what you need scheme.

I think that's the basic tension.  I lean towards the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Everyone has a right to access health care.  There has got to be a reasonable access to a solid plan.  I don't know how one gets there without the healthy young males contributing more, and this poor abused class whines and cries whenever this is proposed.  The other problem is that the insurance companies are demanding to stay involved so they can take a certain percentage of profits off the top.

I'm open to all sorts of suggestions.  The current scheme doesn't please me at all.  However, "I've got mine, up yours" pleases me less.

Right after the inauguration, Trump promised to propose a scheme where more people got better coverage while cutting costs and not mandating participation.  Dream on.  Has anyone seen a scheme like that that has a snowball's chance of getting through a Republican Congress?  Is it my imagination, or has health care gone on a back burner with all the other stuff happening in the White House?  The first baby step was taking towards repealing the ACA, but as there is nothing even vaguely resembling a passable replacement, there has been no second baby step?

I would love it if folks from both sides sat down with good will and tried to work things out, but health care has been turned into such a political hot potato that I'm doubtful that it will happen.  There are so many other stories filling up the front pages that the calls for 'repeal Obamacare now' seem muted.  The problem of proposing an acceptable replacement seems difficult enough that such calls might well remain muted indefinitely.

(02-15-2017, 03:58 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]<snip>

There might be two extremes in health care.  One can go single payer, government funded, universal health care.  One can go pay as you go.  Obviously a healthy young male is more apt to want to pay as you go.  Any other scheme, one way or another, the healthy young male is paying into a pool of funds that others will draw more from than him.  The single payer government funded universal scheme might be fair in the sense that everyone kicks in according to some supposedly fair tax scheme.  No matter what, though, the poor abused complaining healthy young male ends up kicking in more money than he would under a pay for what you need scheme.

<snip>

Uh, I think over a lifetime, males would need more health care due to higher cancer/accident/heart disease.

With that in mind, any sex advantages go away over an average lifetime.  So sex can be excluded on that basis.

Now, I'd prefer single payer with some add ons.

1. Use the VAT tax to pay for it.  Let's just scrap Trump's border tax with a tax that basically does the same thing, but will pass WTO muster. The VAT is better than a fair tax because you can fuck with imports and it's legal. Trump's doing it the hard way.
2. Get rid of Medicaid,VA, and merge it with the single payer plan which can be just Medicare for all.
3. Attempt to cost cut by bringing up Sander's bill about getting rid of no bid drug prices. That's corporate welfare.
4. Go for no fault torts. If ya get hurt, you get a prepaid payout and an automatic investigation. Take the lawyers out.

(02-15-2017, 03:58 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-15-2017, 12:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-15-2017, 07:33 AM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2017, 09:07 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Obama care was passed to provide free or highly subsidized healthcare for the poor and the working poor. The free market principles and other cost lowering measures like tort reform and so forth were completely left out of Obama. The Democratic party basically fucked everyone who had healthcare by not addressing the cost of healthcare for those who already had it. The Democrats don't ever speak to us. The Democrats tend speak to their own and that's it.

This is a lie. There were plenty of cost-lowering stuff, it was blocked by the Republicans along with Joe Lieberman and Max Baucus.

The bill wasn't blocked. The bill was passed. Where was/is all the cost lowering stuff? I didn't see any. I didn't have free (nation wide) access to affordable healthcare. I had limited access to healthcare and I was forced to pay for coverage that I didn't need like birth control pills and so forth.

Yes.  There is a basic difference in the philosophy of the two parties.  A young male with a well paying job with decent benefits is going to prefer the Republican Plan.  If you don't need health care to speak of, the Republicans provide just the health care you want.  I think I went a 20 year stretch in my prime, working for the Military Industrial Complex, full benefits, and the largest health care call I made during that time was for a hyperextended knee acquired playing ultimate frisbee.  If that's your life style, "I've got mine, up yours" seems like a wonderful plan. 

Not so wonderful if you're the one responsible for carrying the babies, if one is an aging diabetic, if one is juggling multiple no benefit part time jobs, etc...

There might be two extremes in health care.  One can go single payer, government funded, universal health care.  One can go pay as you go.  Obviously a healthy young male is more apt to want to pay as you go.  Any other scheme, one way or another, the healthy young male is paying into a pool of funds that others will draw more from than him.  The single payer government funded universal scheme might be fair in the sense that everyone kicks in according to some supposedly fair tax scheme.  No matter what, though, the poor abused complaining healthy young male ends up kicking in more money than he would under a pay for what you need scheme.

I think that's the basic tension.  I lean towards the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Everyone has a right to access health care.  There has got to be a reasonable access to a solid plan.  I don't know how one gets there without the healthy young males contributing more, and this poor abused class whines and cries whenever this is proposed.  The other problem is that the insurance companies are demanding to stay involved so they can take a certain percentage of profits off the top.

I'm open to all sorts of suggestions.  The current scheme doesn't please me at all.  However, "I've got mine, up yours" pleases me less.

Right after the inauguration, Trump promised to propose a scheme where more people got better coverage while cutting costs and not mandating participation.  Dream on.  Has anyone seen a scheme like that that has a snowball's chance of getting through a Republican Congress?  Is it my imagination, or has health care gone on a back burner with all the other stuff happening in the White House?  The first baby step was taking towards repealing the ACA, but as there is nothing even vaguely resembling a passable replacement, there has been no second baby step?

I would love it if folks from both sides sat down with good will and tried to work things out, but health care has been turned into such a political hot potato that I'm doubtful that it will happen.  There are so many other stories filling up the front pages that the calls for 'repeal Obamacare now' seem muted.  The problem of proposing an acceptable replacement seems difficult enough that such calls might well remain muted indefinitely.

Blue's are focused on issues that are viewed as insignificant to the rest of Americans right now. Odin has his, I've got mine, what's the problem? Don't you think Odin should be forced to get a job and pay higher taxes than me to pay for his? I've had to have a job and pay higher prices to keep mine. What's unfair about that type of an arrangement?

(02-15-2017, 05:58 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-15-2017, 03:58 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]<snip>

There might be two extremes in health care.  One can go single payer, government funded, universal health care.  One can go pay as you go.  Obviously a healthy young male is more apt to want to pay as you go.  Any other scheme, one way or another, the healthy young male is paying into a pool of funds that others will draw more from than him.  The single payer government funded universal scheme might be fair in the sense that everyone kicks in according to some supposedly fair tax scheme.  No matter what, though, the poor abused complaining healthy young male ends up kicking in more money than he would under a pay for what you need scheme.

<snip>

Uh, I think over a lifetime, males would need more health care due to higher cancer/accident/heart disease.

With that in mind, any sex advantages go away over an average lifetime.  So sex can be excluded on that basis.

Now, I'd prefer single payer with some add ons.

1. Use the VAT tax to pay for it.  Let's just scrap Trump's border tax with a tax that basically does the same thing, but will pass WTO muster. The VAT is better than a fair tax because you can fuck with imports and it's legal. Trump's doing it the hard way.
2. Get rid of Medicaid,VA, and merge it with the single payer plan which can be just Medicare for all.
3. Attempt to cost cut by bringing up Sander's bill about getting rid of no bid drug prices. That's corporate welfare.
4. Go for no fault torts. If ya get hurt, you get a prepaid payout and an automatic investigation. Take the lawyers out.

You need to watch the healthcare debate between Cruz and Sanders that was on CNN. The primary issue is the affordability of healthcare and not the availability to healthcare. Who wants the government in control of making the decisions as far as their healthcare goes? A group of  clueless blues and that's about it. The debate for single payer is pretty much dead. The Obamacare fiasco/ failure pretty much has killed the idea in it's tracks. You got to give up on single payers because there are now to many deaf ears, so to speak.

(02-15-2017, 06:09 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Blue's are focused on issues that are viewed as insignificant to the rest of Americans right now. Odin has his, I've got mine, what's the problem? Don't you think Odin should be forced to get a job and pay higher taxes than me to pay for his? I've had to have a job and pay higher prices to keep mine. What's unfair about that type of an arrangement?

I have a job.

Your whole mindset is "I've got mine, fuck you".

(02-15-2017, 06:42 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-15-2017, 05:58 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-15-2017, 03:58 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]<snip>

There might be two extremes in health care.  One can go single payer, government funded, universal health care.  One can go pay as you go.  Obviously a healthy young male is more apt to want to pay as you go.  Any other scheme, one way or another, the healthy young male is paying into a pool of funds that others will draw more from than him.  The single payer government funded universal scheme might be fair in the sense that everyone kicks in according to some supposedly fair tax scheme.  No matter what, though, the poor abused complaining healthy young male ends up kicking in more money than he would under a pay for what you need scheme.

<snip>

Uh, I think over a lifetime, males would need more health care due to higher cancer/accident/heart disease.

With that in mind, any sex advantages go away over an average lifetime.  So sex can be excluded on that basis.

Now, I'd prefer single payer with some add ons.

1. Use the VAT tax to pay for it.  Let's just scrap Trump's border tax with a tax that basically does the same thing, but will pass WTO muster. The VAT is better than a fair tax because you can fuck with imports and it's legal. Trump's doing it the hard way.
2. Get rid of Medicaid,VA, and merge it with the single payer plan which can be just Medicare for all.
3. Attempt to cost cut by bringing up Sander's bill about getting rid of no bid drug prices. That's corporate welfare.
4. Go for no fault torts. If ya get hurt, you get a prepaid payout and an automatic investigation. Take the lawyers out.

You need to watch the healthcare debate between Cruz and Sanders that was on CNN. The primary issue is the affordability of healthcare and not the availability to healthcare. Who wants the government in control of making the decisions as far as their healthcare goes? A group of  clueless blues and that's about it. The debate for single payer is pretty much dead. The Obamacare fiasco/ failure pretty much has killed the idea in it's tracks. You got to give up on single payers because there are now to many deaf ears, so to speak.

OK, I did.  Cruz is offering up the same old Neo-liberal markets are always the answer to anything.  Of course Medicare for all isn't free which is why I said use the VAT tax to pay for it. Here's the inside track. Nobody will be paying health insurance premiums anymore. Yes there will be more taxes but the government has done much much better in regard to paying for actual health care than health insurance companies.  So, let me ask you; What value do health insurance companies provide in the provision of health care? All I see is a bunch of hoops to go through.  Here's an estimate of how much we're wasting on health insurance company gross revenue.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/health-car...tatistics/

If you look at that link above, you'll see the dollar amount of 1.668 trillion dollars.  So if we wipe out health insurance companies and have a VAT that raises that amount of revenue, then yes, even Cruz agrees that single payer will pay for everyone's stuff.  If people want more stuff, then they can buy that on the open market. There's no ban on paying out of pocket for a nose job or whatever.  And of course, no matter what, there's rationing. That's where tort reform and getting rid of anti competitive regulations on drug procurment come in. I should have the right to get my scripts filled in Canada.  You know why I can't do this?  It's because most Republicans voted in favor of keeping non competitive regulations so they can suck big Pharma's cocks.

(02-15-2017, 07:36 PM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-15-2017, 06:09 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Blue's are focused on issues that are viewed as insignificant to the rest of Americans right now. Odin has his, I've got mine, what's the problem? Don't you think Odin should be forced to get a job and pay higher taxes than me to pay for his? I've had to have a job and pay higher prices to keep mine. What's unfair about that type of an arrangement?

I have a job.

Your whole mindset is "I've got mine, fuck you".

I have a job, also.  But my employer like lots of them nowadays don't provide health insurance as a benefit. The idea that health insurance should be provided by employers is way long past its sell by date.

(02-15-2017, 07:42 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-15-2017, 07:36 PM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-15-2017, 06:09 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Blue's are focused on issues that are viewed as insignificant to the rest of Americans right now. Odin has his, I've got mine, what's the problem? Don't you think Odin should be forced to get a job and pay higher taxes than me to pay for his? I've had to have a job and pay higher prices to keep mine. What's unfair about that type of an arrangement?

I have a job.

Your whole mindset is "I've got mine, fuck you".

I have a job, also.  But my employer like lots of them nowadays don't provide health insurance as a benefit. The idea that health insurance should be provided by employers is way long past its sell by date.

Agreed.  Companies that provide good health benefits are at a disadvantage competing against those that don't.  With multi payer schemes, where the employee, employer and the government all throwing money into the till, someone or another is going to consider themselves as being schrod.  There is more attention being paid to not being the guy getting schrod than to providing good health care.