Bloomberg v. Trump

[caeron]

It is unlikely.

But my point is that THAT is the kind of socialism that Bernie wants. It isn't scary. Our European friends do quite well with it.

[AdamSmith]

13 hours ago, caeron said:

It is unlikely.

But my point is that THAT is the kind of socialism that Bernie wants. It isn't scary. Our European friends do quite well with it.

Agree entirely.

One has the feeling we have about had enough of these Scholastic arguments, and want some action.

[RockHardNYC]

1 hour ago, AdamSmith said:

One has the feeling we have about had enough of these Scholastic arguments, and want some action.

Scholastic is an understatement. The arguments are childish, much like that debate last night.

15 hours ago, Buddy2 said:

I watched Senator Sanders on the CNN  Town Hall also. I wouldn't describe the audience as  so enthusiastic as others have. The CNN Town Hall audiences are always enthusiastic.

Everyone is entitled to his opinion. I watch all the Town Halls. It struck me that Sander's audience was very enthusiastic. They had a distinct energy that other audiences did not quite meet. I work in show business. I know how to detect and analyze energy.

Sanders has a ground game that no one else has. He says the same things over and over again, and his fans continue to listen. This past week is the first time I took a closer look at the man. I have not given money to the Sanders campaign. Yet.

16 hours ago, caeron said:

insurance companies are making bank

To the detriment of human lives. It is one of the most immoral facts about life in America. Sanders is saying what no one else has the courage to say, and his message is relentless. In America, making record profits trumps citizen welfare and well being. The top one percent accrue enormous wealth via Trump's tax breaks (increasing the debt) while millions go without food, shelter, health insurance or the threat of losing everything because someone in the family has cancer or Alzheimer's. Sanders is leading the fight for the working man, and his message is resonating.

16 hours ago, Buddy2 said:

Could a President Sanders win a Democratic Party Senate to pass health care.

That remains to be seen. The country's residents are getting older by the minute. If Sanders can win with a mandate, lots of change is possible.

If a gay mayor from Indiana can garner as many votes from senior citizens across this country as Mayor Pete has, I can't help but be optimistic about the country's future.

[RA1]

17 hours ago, Buddy2 said:

Could a President Sanders win a Democratic Party Senate to pass health care. Unlikely.

Also unlikely that he could get the Congress to pass many of his reforms.  However, he still can change a lot of things.  I don't wish to take that chance.

Best regards,

RA1

[RA1]

18 hours ago, RockHardNYC said:

There isn't one shred of evidence. This is a fake Republican talking point aimed at demonizing Sanders and distorting his words and beliefs. There is nothing "Communist" about the State of Vermont, where Sanders has been a political leader since 1981. It's a lovely state and its residents enjoy living and working there.

Sanders freely explains what he means by Socialist Democrat. And the Republicans are wet with glee attempting to assign their false and phony interpretation. Sanders equates his political thinking to FDR. He boldly disdains Communism, Nazism, Fascism, and any other dictatorial rule.

Sanders is not against big business. But he certainly doesn't think it's fair that Amazon does not pay federal income tax. Along with Amazon, other companies that do not pay are: Netflix, Chevron, Delta Airlines, Eli Lilly, General Motors, Gannett, Goodyear Tire and Rubber, Halliburton, IBM, Jetblue Airways, Principal Financial, Salesforce.com, US Steel, and Whirlpool. He has a point.

Sanders says that Medicare is not government run. The program simply pays the doctors and hospitals. It does not "own" or "manage" the doctors and hospitals who wish to participate. I'm too young for Medicare, but everyone I know who has it loves it, at least in New York. Many major doctors in teaching institutions participate in the program. I agree with Sanders that health care should be a human right. I hate health insurance companies making medical decisions based on profit motive. And I agree that no person should go broke or bankrupt from getting sick.

I am sick and tired of all the misinformation out there. I'm glad I pay attention to my sources.

Tell the doctors that the government does not run Medicare.  It dictates what procedures and the cost thereof to them.  Obviously the medical delivery system can do better, but at what cost?  I see little difference between the government deciding which procedures are OK and political policy doing the same.  

Best regards,

RA1

[RockHardNYC]

35 minutes ago, RA1 said:

Tell the doctors that the government does not run Medicare.

I've worked with quite a few doctors who practice in Manhattan, some of them are famous. I've had vigorous discussions with all of them. Every single one believes that the insurance companies need to get out of health care.

39 minutes ago, RA1 said:

Obviously the medical delivery system can do better, but at what cost?

For the betterment of humankind.

I have several doctors in my family. They all worked in Third World medicine, some during wars. They hate commercial, for-profit health care.

Yes, a more moral approach in this country will eliminate people going into medicine to "get rich." I don't see anything wrong with that change. The vast majority of people who pursue careers in health care do it because it is a calling. Nothing wrong with making a good living, but most health care workers don't care about being rich. The reward is caring for people.

Certain aspects of health care, like cosmetic surgery, will continue to attract gold diggers. It's the nature of the beast.

It is remarkable to me that most insurance companies do not cover hearing aids, dentistry, and many prescription drugs. Sanders is speaking directly to this corporate corruption, and many people over forty-five, especially those on fixed incomes, are listening.

[RA1]

9 minutes ago, RockHardNYC said:

I've worked with quite a few doctors who practice in Manhattan, some of them are famous. I've had vigorous discussions with all of them. Every single one believes that the insurance companies need to get out of health care.

For the betterment of humankind.

I have several doctors in my family. They all worked in Third World medicine, some during wars. They hate commercial, for-profit health care.

Yes, a more moral approach in this country will eliminate people going into medicine to "get rich." I don't see anything wrong with that change. The vast majority of people who pursue careers in health care do it because it is a calling. Nothing wrong with making a good living, but most health care workers don't care about being rich. The reward is caring for people.

Certain aspects of health care, like cosmetic surgery, will continue to attract gold diggers. It's the nature of the beast.

It is remarkable to me that most insurance companies do not cover hearing aids, dentistry, and many prescription drugs. Sanders is speaking directly to this corporate corruption, and many people over forty-five, especially those on fixed incomes, are listening.

Insurance is supposed to spread the risk among many.  There are plenty of things wrong with the current insurance industry.  But the basic premise still applies.  We all should benefit if the insurance industry were allowed to enlarge the pool.  One of many problems.

Not everyone is suited to be as altruistic as you suggest.  Still it would be better if they were.

Best regards,

RA1

[caeron]

My father was a physician who consulted all over the US and world on building healthcare systems and ensuring quality care.

He was very clear that single payer healthcare systems provided better care that was far cheaper.

There is plenty of empirical research to back up this position for those who care to actually inform themselves. 

I am also a bit baffled why this has become a party divide issue. When I worked in a start up, one of the top three issues of pretty much every company was how to get healthcare for employees. The lack of universal healthcare that is portable and dependable negatively impacts startups and new business activity all over the country. It is part of the essential safety net that people need to step out and try new stuff.

I guess telling women what to do with their bodies is more important than making sure they and we have them.

[caeron]

1 hour ago, RA1 said:

Insurance is supposed to spread the risk among many.  There are plenty of things wrong with the current insurance industry.  But the basic premise still applies.  We all should benefit if the insurance industry were allowed to enlarge the pool.  One of many problems.

Not everyone is suited to be as altruistic as you suggest.  Still it would be better if they were.

Best regards,

RA1

 

I don't think you're thinking this through. If spreading the risk is what insurance is all about, then what better way to manage risk than to make universal healthcare? The insurance companies naturally say, "Give us more customers and profits, yeah, that's the answer!" but think about this practically. Why should we as a society use a more expensive, less efficient model to deliver something essential just so companies can profit.

Compare the other 'socialist' institutions of police and fire.

Does it make any sense to have people individually sign up for police protection and pay 'police insurance'?  Ditto for the fire department? 

No, it doesn't. As a society we all benefit when the police try to protect everyone and enforce the law on everyone. Ditto for trying to stop stuff from burning down. Because in both cases, failure to protect everyone has costs for everyone.

When people get sick who don't have insurance, guess what, when they show up at an emergency room they have to be treated. Guess who pays for that. All of us who pay for our insurance. The simple and direct answer that pretty much every other civilized nation has come up with is to provide care for everyone that everyone pays for.

[RockHardNYC]

2 hours ago, RA1 said:

Insurance is supposed to spread the risk among many.

Insurance is a business, primarily Republican owned btw, that profits by saying no to claims. IMO, they have no business making money off of sick and dying people.

2 hours ago, RA1 said:

Not everyone is suited to be as altruistic as you suggest.

Of course people need jobs, and there are some people working in health care who are there simply to receive a paycheck. The best place to see the difference is in the nursing industry.

Our world could use a little more altruism.

34 minutes ago, caeron said:

If spreading the risk is what insurance is all about, then what better way to manage risk than to make universal healthcare?

Absolutely. The only way to share risk fairly is for everyone who can pay to pay. The best idea I heard for single payer: Everyone making less than $80,000 a year before taxes, pays nothing. Those making over $80,000, pay a sliding scale of modest percentages.

The insurance industry is nothing more than a paper wasting/spending middle man. For their outrageous price and profit goals, they offer no bang-for-the-buck to patients. They don't enhance or advance the quality of health care in any way. They don't assist doctors and hospitals in making smart medical decisions. They are nothing more than a side business created to make money. It's time for this insanity to end.

46 minutes ago, caeron said:

Compare the other 'socialist' institutions of police and fire.

Average Americans somehow are in denial about city police and fire departments, and social security payments. They have no clue what "socialist" institutions have long existed in our Capitalist culture. Yet, if you ask to take them away, voters will come screaming for your head.

Many Republicans would love to abolish social security. But no politician has any spine to say so out loud because they know what would happen. Their political career would be over immediately.

 

[Buddy2]

4 hours ago, RA1 said:

Also unlikely that he could get the Congress to pass many of his reforms.  However, he still can change a lot of things.  I don't wish to take that chance.

Best regards,

RA1

I agree. A President Sanders is much better than a conservative Republican president. But, he is not Franklin Roosevelt or Lyndon Johnson. Johnson was one of greatest Congressial leaders of the Democratic Party. Senator Sanders is one of the greatest speakers, but doesn't have much legislative history or success.

I am sure Speaker Pelosi and the next Demoratic Party speaker can carry the load. However, what about the Senate? Pete, Elizabeth and Amy are right about the filibuster.

[RA1]

3 hours ago, RockHardNYC said:

Insurance is a business, primarily Republican owned btw, that profits by saying no to claims. IMO, they have no business making money off of sick and dying people.

Of course people need jobs, and there are some people working in health care who are there simply to receive a paycheck. The best place to see the difference is in the nursing industry.

Our world could use a little more altruism.

Absolutely. The only way to share risk fairly is for everyone who can pay to pay. The best idea I heard for single payer: Everyone making less than $80,000 a year before taxes, pays nothing. Those making over $80,000, pay a sliding scale of modest percentages.

The insurance industry is nothing more than a paper wasting/spending middle man. For their outrageous price and profit goals, they offer no bang-for-the-buck to patients. They don't enhance or advance the quality of health care in any way. They don't assist doctors and hospitals in making smart medical decisions. They are nothing more than a side business created to make money. It's time for this insanity to end.

Average Americans somehow are in denial about city police and fire departments, and social security payments. They have no clue what "socialist" institutions have long existed in our Capitalist culture. Yet, if you ask to take them away, voters will come screaming for your head.

Many Republicans would love to abolish social security. But no politician has any spine to say so out loud because they know what would happen. Their political career would be over immediately.

 

I don't know about you guys but I have fire insurance and theft insurance.  Some don't seem to know that the mission of the fire department is not saving your structure but preventing the fire from spreading to other structures.  

The more I know about LBJ and FDR the less I like them and their legislative agenda.  I have heard all my life that any reputable insurance company could take the tax money collected for social security and double or triple the benefit.  

Much of what you report is political propaganda or political opinion.  I understand that and we all do it.  However, I do try to see other points of view even if they contradict my own.

Best regards,

RA1 

[Buddy2]

Johnson passed three civil bills into law from November 1963 to January 1969.

 

Do you disagree with the legislature from the 1960s?

[RA1]

2 minutes ago, Buddy2 said:

Johnson passed three civil bills into law from November 1963 to January 1969.

 

Do you disagree with the legislature from the 1960s?

Yes.

Best regards,

RA1

[Buddy2]

3 minutes ago, RA1 said:

Yes.

Best regards,

RA1

Good Grief, you disagree with long delayed civil rights passed through Congress and signed after years of horrible discrimination again black folks especially in The American South and big cities in the North and Far West.

 

Are you in Show Business too?.

[RA1]

1 minute ago, Buddy2 said:

Good Grief, you disagree with long delayed civil rights passed through Congress and signed after years of horrible discrimination again black folks especially in The American South and big cities in the North and Far West.

 

Are you in Show Business too?.

No, I am very much in favor of civil rights but those championed by the public, not the Congress.  I love minorities, invalids and others who seem less fortunate.  But I think society should take care of them, not the government.

Best regards,

RA1

[caeron]

1 hour ago, RA1 said:

No, I am very much in favor of civil rights but those championed by the public, not the Congress.  I love minorities, invalids and others who seem less fortunate.  But I think society should take care of them, not the government.

Best regards,

RA1

 

Yeah, that worked out so well historically. I guess you think we should have just kept denying black folks voting rights until us whities decided that we loved them enough to share, huh? 

I do not think your arguments are well considered.

We can get better healthcare, cheaper with single payer. I spent my entire career working for corporations. They have one single motive. To make money. If people died in ditches while they profited, they wouldn't care except that such a thing might impact their ability to continue making money. Corporations are soulless profit machines.

That's not bad really, but it really does mean that you have to give them strict rules to live within, because they will happily do horribly things to make money.

Corporations are very efficient at making a profit. That's their sole purpose. But you really need to ask yourself if making a profit should be the purpose of healthcare, or whether it's to make people better...

[RockHardNYC]

1 hour ago, RA1 said:

I don't know about you guys but I have fire insurance and theft insurance. 

My building is a multi-unit Co-op. Each cooperative apartment corporation is required to have its own insurance. Sometimes the building insurance policy covers each apartment for fire and theft. It depends. When the building's insurance policy doesn't include fire and theft, owners are required to have sufficient liability coverage.

I'm not suggesting that all insurance should die. It won't. Insurance policies are needed for events that can happen but don't happen often.

1 hour ago, RA1 said:

Some don't seem to know that the mission of the fire department is not saving your structure

But they do save your life if necessary, and they won't send you a bill that will bankrupt you and your family.

1 hour ago, RA1 said:

Much of what you report is political propaganda or political opinion.

I guess you mean the part about Republicans owning the insurance companies of America. In fairness, it is difficult to know for sure the vote of company owners and CEOs. However, almost 70% of insurance lobbying payments are made to Republican members of Congress. That's enough data for me.

 

[RockHardNYC]

1 hour ago, RA1 said:

the less fortunate... I think society should take care of them, not the government.

LOL. Now who is being altruistic?

[AdamSmith]

1 hour ago, RA1 said:

No, I am very much in favor of civil rights but those championed by the public, not the Congress.  I love minorities, invalids and others who seem less fortunate.  But I think society should take care of them, not the government.

Best regards,

RA1

Can you give us any examples in the history of this republic (or before we were a republic) of when this happened?

[RA1]

14 hours ago, AdamSmith said:

Can you give us any examples in the history of this republic (or before we were a republic) of when this happened?

During the early days of my life churches, charities and other local groups were doing a lot to help others.  Today's climate seems more oriented towards let the other guy do it or the government.  In other words it seems that too many seek to limit personal responsibility for others.  Money, especially tax money, is the way for "others" to take care of any unfortunate.  Sad, really.

Best regards,

RA1

[Buddy2]

5 hours ago, RA1 said:

During the early days of my life churches, charities and other local groups were doing a lot to help others.  Today's climate seems more oriented towards let the other guy do it or the government.  In other words it seems that too many seek to limit personal responsibility for others.  Money, especially tax money, is the way for "others" to take care of any unfortunate.  Sad, really.

Best regards,

RA1

Churches and charity can only do a partial job with the homeless. It has usually provided better to partner with local, state and federal governments to be more successful.

 

I worked in a city program to supervise and fund local CDCs and non profits to provide housing counseling to low and moderate income residents buying their first houses. The city paid for a home inspection by a certified home inspector, not city workers. I worked in local government for 22 years and greatly liked my job.

[AdamSmith]

11 hours ago, RA1 said:

During the early days of my life churches, charities and other local groups were doing a lot to help others.  Today's climate seems more oriented towards let the other guy do it or the government.  In other words it seems that too many seek to limit personal responsibility for others.  Money, especially tax money, is the way for "others" to take care of any unfortunate.  Sad, really.

Best regards,

RA1

In my town, the city police break up & drive out church groups attempting to give food to the homeless in public city squares.

One has to wonder what Jeshuah bar Joseph would have said about that.

[RA1]

12 hours ago, AdamSmith said:

In my town, the city police break up & drive out church groups attempting to give food to the homeless in public city squares.

One has to wonder what Jeshuah bar Joseph would have said about that.

Are these Sanders supporters?

Best regards,

RA1

[AdamSmith]

12 hours ago, RA1 said:

Are these Sanders supporters?

Best regards,

RA1

They support every Republican candidate and politician. By 'they' I mean the city police.

I have no idea of the political orientation of those who would aid the hungry and destitute. Which you know is what our Lord and Savior commanded us to do, without judgment.

Could you say why you said what you said above? It seems relentlessly heartless.