Sanders Campaign Russian Collusion

#301
#301
FLVOL_79 said:
Lil Mick..when you say that the way to progress is government take over of public business, you are a communist. Thats basic high school US history. It appears you are part of that "didnt graduate" voting bloc the democrats love.

When I was in AP US history in high school we had to "form a new government". I just reworded the Soviet constitution, the Stalin one. The class ate it up, saying it was better than the USA's. Something tells me one of those kids is one of your parents.
Click to expand...

Actually, government takeover of businesses could be socialistic or communistic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb
#305
#305
Mick said:
Oh, it's real.

bushbow.jpg
Click to expand...
No. No its not. You posted an obvious and debunked fake photo of George Bush kissing the Saudi King on the lips. You are quickly climbing the ladder of stupidity on this forum, soon to overtake Luther.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider, 37L1, volfanjustin and 3 others
#306
#306
Mick said:
All in all there is not that much competition. Before Obamacare most companies bounced around from insurance companies to insurance companies increasing premiums and reducing benefits. In the end you were still paying for the healthcare poor people got. Healthcare providers know you can't get blood out of a turnip but they do compensate by passing on the cost to those that do have insurance. IMO if you can take that burden off of insurance companies and healthcare providers cost will go down. If amount saved is greater than the tax increase the individual is doing better. Admitted I'm not that familiar with the exact details of his plan.
Click to expand...

Insurance companies are a big part of the problem. They totally distorted the market and they are able to do this because of government involvement. In the first place, we capped wages during the depression, so employers offered benefits in place of higher wages. That's how employer-provided health care was born. The insertion of a middle man that represented collectives diffused costs across the group and concentrated benefits (this is the root of most waste in our form of government, and now we've seen it applied to the health care market). Because of this, providers and insurance companies can get away with little transparency and competition. We've got a mountain of red tape to ensure better outcomes for recipients. Some of them work, but most of them make health care more expensive and insurance companies and hospitals basically always win. I'm not one for regulation, but if we're going to have it, why not have smart regulation that encourages competition?....like forcing providers to publicly publish the cost of services. Lobbyists are always very influential in policy-making, and that's why we end up with so many regulations that benefit corporations instead of consumers.

There are three huge problems with the solutions the left tends to provide (not that the right is offering much better):
  1. We can't afford them
  2. Giving the government more control over health care outcomes opens the door for more lobbying
  3. Even if they came up with a super smart plan, implementation of a plan where the government increases its role is probably the most tricky component of all of this
This is a good pod episode.

Policymaking Is Not a Science (Yet) (Ep. 405) - Freakonomics
 
  • Like
Reactions: theFallGuy and Mick
#307
#307
FLVOL_79 said:
No. No its not. You posted an obvious and debunked fake photo of George Bush kissing the Saudi King on the lips. You are quickly climbing the ladder of stupidity on this forum, soon to overtake Luther.
Click to expand...
It's a real picture numb nuts. I don't care how much you stomp your feet.
 
#309
#309
n_huffhines said:
Insurance companies are a big part of the problem. They totally distorted the market and they are able to do this because of government involvement. In the first place, we capped wages during the depression, so employers offered benefits in place of higher wages. That's how employer-provided health care was born. The insertion of a middle man that represented collectives diffused costs across the group and concentrated benefits (this is the root of most waste in our form of government, and now we've seen it applied to the health care market). Because of this, providers and insurance companies can get away with little transparency and competition. We've got a mountain of red tape to ensure better outcomes for recipients. Some of them work, but most of them make health care more expensive and insurance companies and hospitals basically always win. I'm not one for regulation, but if we're going to have it, why not have smart regulation that encourages competition?....like forcing providers to publicly publish the cost of services. Lobbyists always end up being very influential, and that's why we end up with so many regulations that benefit corporations instead of consumers.

There are three huge problems with the solutions the left tends to provide (not that the right is offering much better):
  1. We can't afford them
  2. Giving the government more control over health care outcomes opens the door for more lobbying
  3. Even if they came up with a super smart plan, implementation of a plan where the government increases its role is probably the most tricky component of all of this
This is a good pod episode.

Policymaking Is Not a Science (Yet) (Ep. 405) - Freakonomics
Click to expand...

I've thought of having a community based approach to healthcare and not employer based. The caveat being poor rural areas that require outside funding.
 
#310
#310
n_huffhines said:
Insurance companies are a big part of the problem. They totally distorted the market and they are able to do this because of government involvement. In the first place, we capped wages during the depression, so employers offered benefits in place of higher wages. That's how employer-provided health care was born. The insertion of a middle man that represented collectives diffused costs across the group and concentrated benefits (this is the root of most waste in our form of government, and now we've seen it applied to the health care market). Because of this, providers and insurance companies can get away with little transparency and competition. We've got a mountain of red tape to ensure better outcomes for recipients. Some of them work, but most of them make health care more expensive and insurance companies and hospitals basically always win. I'm not one for regulation, but if we're going to have it, why not have smart regulation that encourages competition?....like forcing providers to publicly publish the cost of services. Lobbyists are always very influential in policy-making, and that's why we end up with so many regulations that benefit corporations instead of consumers.

There are three huge problems with the solutions the left tends to provide (not that the right is offering much better):
  1. We can't afford them
  2. Giving the government more control over health care outcomes opens the door for more lobbying
  3. Even if they came up with a super smart plan, implementation of a plan where the government increases its role is probably the most tricky component of all of this
This is a good pod episode.

Policymaking Is Not a Science (Yet) (Ep. 405) - Freakonomics
Click to expand...


This is why I prefer the public option as a solution on the campaign trail. Don't force people into Medicare. Its too complicated to think of the change. People just want stability and dependability in their medical care. They want to know they can go to the same PCP ad infinitum and that if they need some sort of emergent care it is available to them.

Currently, 80 % of primary care physicians are accepting new private insurance patients, while close to that -- 72 % -- accept new Medicare patients. So roughly 90 % of the time, you could keep your current doctor or find a new one easily if you moved or just wanted a change. And hospitals take Medicare so that should rarely be an issue.

But the system is so fragmented that people don't want to risk it. The solution is to offer it to people. They sign up, great. They don't and they can continue to pay 15 to 30% more for the same coverage from Aetna. Entirely up to them.
 
#313
#313
0nelilreb said:
It’s a public political forum , not a private messaging system you jackwagon . You are the last person that should be calling anybody disrespectful.
Click to expand...
I asked you and you refused, that's being disrespectful. Grow up you pathetic troll.
 
#314
#314
Mick said:
It's a real picture numb nuts. I don't care how much you stomp your feet.
Click to expand...
Its 100% photoshopped. Someone took a screen grab from the below video and photoshopped it. Now go find a mirror, look directly into your eyes if you can even make eye contact with yourself, and admonish accordingly for being so gullible and ignorant.



Mick stops posting in 3...2....1...
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and volfanjustin
#315
#315
Mick said:
I asked you and you refused, that's being disrespectful. Grow up you pathetic troll.
Click to expand...

You didn’t ask me sh!t , you told me to stay out of it , on a political forum of all places . I was extremely easy on you, you wouldn’t make it in a political forum that wasn’t as safe as this one is . You need thicker skin .
 
#316
#316
0nelilreb said:
You didn’t ask me sh!t , you told me to stay out of it , on a political forum of all places . I was extremely easy on you, you wouldn’t make it in a political forum that wasn’t as safe as this one is . You need thicker skin .
Click to expand...
Really, I wouldn't make it in a forum full of low informed redhat trolls and this is my safe place? You need to change your pork chop or quit stalking non redhats.
 
#317
#317
FLVOL_79 said:
Its 100% photoshopped. Someone took a screen grab from the below video and photoshopped it. Now go find a mirror, look directly into your eyes if you can even make eye contact with yourself, and admonish accordingly for being so gullible and ignorant.



Mick stops posting in 3...2....1...
Click to expand...
Did Bush kiss and hold hands with the king or not? But Obama bowed. Make a mountain out of a molehill and see what you got. Only Redhats care that Obama bowed. It was the worse thing the leader of the United States could have done. Your problem is you think you're being cute playing up to people just like you, but in reality you look foolish to everyone else.
 
#318
#318
Mick said:
Really, I wouldn't make it in a forum full of low informed redhat trolls and this is my safe place? You need to change your pork chop or quit stalking non redhats.
Click to expand...

You wouldn’t make it in a free speech, non PC forum regardless of how many Rs were in there . You would be whining , screeching and crying after the first ones saw how thin skinned you are and how easy it is to aggravate you. The next thing we would see after they got through with you is a message that says ... “ Mick has left the chat “ I know this because you think I’m a troll , you don’t have a clue what real trolls are like . 😂
 
#321
#321
Mick said:
Did Bush kiss and hold hands with the king or not? But Obama bowed. Make a mountain out of a molehill and see what you got. Only Redhats care that Obama bowed. It was the worse thing the leader of the United States could have done. Your problem is you think you're being cute playing up to people just like you, but in reality you look foolish to everyone else.
Click to expand...
Sure he did. What he didn't do is kiss him on the lips like shown in the picture you posted, which you later even said was a real picture no matter what anyone else thought. You're a fool. But because I feel sorry for your low IQ I will provide you a link that might help you look like less of a moron in the future:

How Do you Tell if a Photo is Photoshopped? 9 Ways to Spot a Fake Photo

Also on the hand holding.. Thats a thing in the middle east. 100% chance you've never been there but anyone else that has can confirm what I stated. Not saying Dubya should have done it because its extremely effeminate and left wingy.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and 37L1
#323
#323
Velo Vol said:
It's a meaningless custom. No viewer really thinks it is making the US a subject of that kingdom.
Click to expand...

Not a subject of ... the reason a US president never bows to a king is because he is his equal . Bowing denotes a lesser status .
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#325
#325
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top