2020 US Presidential Election

   #21  

Mike R

Ross-Tech Employee
Staff member
Joined
Apr 10, 2014
Messages
423
Reaction score
498
Location
Virgo Supercluster
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=126524
Truth is, I was a Bernie guy before I was a Trump guy. Had the Dems not screwed him, we’d be talking about President Sanders.

I seriously doubt it. Hillary was more moderate than Bernie (obviously). Bernie would have simply scared off some of the more moderate voters to either go 3rd party or more stay home. Trump may be an asshole, bigot, and egotistical maniac, but he's not a true radical on the US political spectrum like Sanders is.
 
Last edited:
   #22  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
29,999
Reaction score
21,422
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
I seriously doubt it. Hillary was more moderate than Bernie (obviously). Bernie would have simply scared off some of the more moderate voters to either go 3rd party or more stay home. Trump may be an asshole, bigot, and egotistical maniac, but he's not a true radical on the US political spectrum like Sanders is.
It's really hard to say. Keep in mind that Hillary was regard as somewhat more evil that the Wicked Witch of the West by about half the country, whereas Bernie was/is regarded as a well-intentioned (albeit misguided) socialist. :)

-Uwe-
 
   #24  

DV52

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
3,620
Reaction score
4,026
Location
Melbourne, Australia
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=194404
Although I do not agree with this (because government cannot provide anything to Paul without stealing it from Peter first), I'll point out that the current crop of Democratic candidates takes it several steps beyond providing medical services to citizens. During the second debate, all ten candidates indicated (by a show of hands) that their government plan would provide health care coverage to undocumented immigrants (i.e. non-citizens who have entered the country illegally). So basically, they are offering health care at the expense of US tax payers to any of the planet's 7.7 billion inhabitants who can manage to sneak into the US by some means. I'm sorry, but IMO that's being a bit too generous with the wealth of our nation.

-Uwe-
First, allow me to apologize to those reading these posts for hijacking the topic - albeit there appears to be a relevance for discussing universal healthcare in this tread through Uwe's confirmation that this issue has appeared in the second debate.

Second: I'm well aware that I'm a foreigner and I fully recognize that I hold very "un-American" views regarding this matter.

This said, I acknowledge that the tax purse of any country is a limited resource and that it's the role of every citizen in a democratically elected government (via their vote) to decide how to slice-up the tax pie. And like any nation on either side of the equator, similar considerations have occurred here. In fact, Australia has even invented a macroeconomic term for the drive to reduce the size of the welfare spend: "economic rationalism".

With the greatest of respect, and as a specific reply to the apparent dichotomy between the health-care spend in your country and the potential reach of America's largess to "7.7 Billion" recipients -aren't these entirely different issues?

Not surprising, I think that we agree that a citizen (regardless of financial status) in trouble should have access to the health care facilities of that country (not surprising to me, because ALL Americans that I have met have been an empathetic and humane lot). But I agree - the pivotal question is: should this inalienable citizen right be extended to "undocumented immigrants"?

hmm.... while the economic rationalists in my country might "rationalize" that it's not Australia's role - I think that this response is way too naive.

It's far too easy to sit in our comfortable surroundings and dispassionately say that "undocumented immigrants" deserve what they get because they have entered the country illegally. But the only honest and correct way to answer this vexed question (IMHO) is to put ourselves in the shoes of a triage nurse who is confronted by the "undocumented" parents of a 2 year-old child with a life threatening complaint. Of course I have manufactured this example - but this is deliberately done to highlight that hard-edged economic decisions have real consequences that can impinge on who we are as a nation.

Without wishing to be too dramatic in Uwe's bar - in truth, it's the way that we answer these most difficult of questions that is the true measure of our humanity as human beings (I believe).

To my mind (and Australia does face the same problem with "undocumented immigrants" albeit the tyranny of distance is a salve to the size of this problem), the answer is an overwhelming YES - regardless of citizen status everyone who is physically in the country must have access to the country's health-car services.

As to how to deal with the "7.7 Billion" - this is a totally separate question that some have said can be solved by a F#cking huge wall erected around the border (note: nothing new about this solution, the Chinese did something similar in 771 BC). Here in Australia, we have outsourced this problem by hiring the services of the governments in Nauru and Manus Island!

Don
 
Last edited:
   #25  

Jack@European_Parts

NostraJackAss
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
20,395
Reaction score
8,729
Location
Montgomery, NY, USA
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=57337
Don,

Illegal aliens already receive free healthcare in the USA, It's the citizens who are being short changed.
Working and non working.
Fact:

Most bankruptcies in the United States, are a result of an inability to pay for a medical problem.

Now healthcare industries try to get people to sign waivers to automatically drain any assets that could survive such an insolvency or a reaffirmed waiver to collateralize the dept on future assets acquired or even a retirement.
The illegal gets to move to next town or state etc. and circumvent all of it and that seems just a tad unfair to the rest of us.
There will always be people that can't pay, but that is what Medicare and Medicaid are already for.

A single pay mandatory flat fair tax universal healthcare system should be levied to anyone that buys anything and whistle blower laws on fraud of Government should be extremely strengthened to make it unthinkable.

I think a menu for a cost of services should be mandated displayed and the fees that can be charged to avoid confusion.

Creative billing and lack of transparency are a serious problem.
 
Last edited:
   #26  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
29,999
Reaction score
21,422
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
But I agree - the pivotal question is: should this inalienable citizen right be extended to "undocumented immigrants"?
Personally, I don't agree with the premise that anyone has a "right" to health care. "Health care" is goods and services that are the fruits of some people's intellect and labor. No person has a "right" to the fruits of another's labor.

As to how to deal with the "7.7 Billion" - this is a totally separate question that some have said can be solved by a F#cking huge wall erected around the border (note: nothing new about this solution, the Chinese did something similar in 771 BC). Here in Australia, we have outsourced this problem by hiring the services of the governments in Nauru and Manus Island!
You also have an entire continent surrounded by an ocean. You don't have something like 100,000 people walking across over 3000 km of mostly unprotected land border land border (just on the south side). OK, something like half that border is a river, but that river can easily be waded across for a good portion of the year.

Oh, and it's supposed to be a YUGE wall. Say it right: YUGE! :D

-Uwe-
 
Last edited:
   #27  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
29,999
Reaction score
21,422
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
I think a menu for a cost of services should be mandated displayed and the fees that can be charged to avoid confusion. Creative billing and lack of transparency are a serious problem.
A agree with this, but not the rest of what you wrote. But more than that needs to happen to get things under control:

One of the reasons health care costs so much is that hardly anyone actually pays for it out-of-pocket, and when someone else is gonna pay for that hospital bill anyway, why would you expect the patient care what it costs?

Health insurance used to pay 80%. That left some incentive for people to price-shop if they could. These days though, it's generally covers everything except a flat co-pay, like $100 / day in the hospital for the first 5 days or some such. So it doesn't matter if you go to a hospital that bills $500 a day or one that bills $1000 a day, the patient's cost is $100 either way.

-Uwe-
 
   #28  

DV52

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
3,620
Reaction score
4,026
Location
Melbourne, Australia
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=194404
Uwe;169215 said:
Oh, and it's supposed to be a YUGE wall. Say it right: YUGE! :D

-Uwe-
"YUGE" !!!:D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Uwe
   #29  

Jack@European_Parts

NostraJackAss
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
20,395
Reaction score
8,729
Location
Montgomery, NY, USA
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=57337
One of the reasons health care costs so much is that hardly anyone actually pays for it out-of-pocket, and when someone else is gonna pay for that hospital bill anyway, why would you expect the patient care what it costs?

Health insurance used to pay 80%. That left some incentive for people to price-shop if they could. These days though, it's generally covers everything except a flat co-pay, like $100 / day in the hospital for the first 5 days or some such. So it doesn't matter if you go to a hospital that bills $500 a day or one that bills $1000 a day, the patient's cost is $100 either way.
-Uwe-
Not totally accurate, it's done in advance with most likely a supplemented insurance policy & this is marketed as a means of desensitizing the billing & to keep the status quo and bilk people out of more money.
The poor bastard with nothing, gets everything and the dude that is just getting by, gets slaughtered.

Its easy when one has the ability to pay or is successful enough in business to say this, but think of how many businesses started & fail in first 5 years than succeed?

Those statistics don't lie....
https://www.google.com/search?q=sta...=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=G3R_pwqB6cOGkM:
 
   #30  

Mike R

Ross-Tech Employee
Staff member
Joined
Apr 10, 2014
Messages
423
Reaction score
498
Location
Virgo Supercluster
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=126524
Another reason Universal Health Care doesn't work here in the US as much as it might elsewhere in the world, is the sheer levels of profiteering that are permitted to happen in the industry.

U.S. health spending twice other countries' with worse results

The U.S. spends about twice what other high-income nations do on health care but has the lowest life expectancy and the highest infant mortality rates, a new study suggests.

In 2016, the U.S. spent 17.8 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on healthcare. Other countries’ spending ranged from a low of 9.6 percent of GDP in Australia to a high of 12.4 percent of GDP in Switzerland.

A large part of this was administrative costs, which accounted for 8 percent of GDP in the U.S., more than double the average of 3 percent of GDP.

If the U.S. did less imaging and fewer of 25 common procedures, and lowered prices and the number of procedures to levels in the Netherlands, it would translate into a savings of $137 billion, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel of the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania writes in an accompanying editorial.
Two of the biggest crime syndicates in the US are the Health Care industry and the Student Loan sharks.
 
   #32  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
29,999
Reaction score
21,422
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
Another reason Universal Health Care doesn't work here in the US as much as it might elsewhere in the world, is the sheer levels of profiteering that are permitted to happen in the industry.

U.S. health spending twice other countries' with worse results

the highest infant mortality rates
Don't get me started on that completely misleading infant mortality statistic. Bottom line: The way it's calculated in the US is completely different than the way the rest of the world calculates it.

-Uwe-
 
   #34  

D-Dub

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
618
Reaction score
627
Location
US 2014 GTI Drivers Edition/DSG
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=272151
universal healthcare in america would only work if healthcare was governed as a utility. (and healthcare as a utility I could support)

put ourselves in the shoes of a triage nurse who is confronted by the "undocumented" parents of a 2 year-old child with a life threatening complaint
the result should be exactly the same for any parent.
the child gets the care, the parents pay for the costs.

unfortunately undocumented often means they simply don't pay and then disappear to repeat all over somewhere else.

any undocumented that receives health care should be immediately reported to INS and deported at first opportunity.

and that should apply to any tax-payer provided service that is attempted to be utilized by a non-citizen.
 
   #35  

DV52

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
3,620
Reaction score
4,026
Location
Melbourne, Australia
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=194404
Another reason Universal Health Care doesn't work here in the US as much as it might elsewhere in the world, is the sheer levels of profiteering that are permitted to happen in the industry.

U.S. health spending twice other countries' with worse results

Two of the biggest crime syndicates in the US are the Health Care industry and the Student Loan sharks.
Mike: Without trying to take issue with the entire Ross clan - again this is an entirely different issue to the question as to who should have access to healthcare. The disconnect between the size of America's health-care spend and the infant mortality rate and citizen longevity is clearly a matter of efficiency and effectiveness of how the monies are deployed (as your link says).

It's an even more obscene observation to know that a sizable quantity of the tax purse that is meant to provide health care in your country is being siphoned into the pockets of "crime syndicates" - appalling that your Government has (and continues) to permit this!!

Personally, I don't agree with the premise that anyone has a "right" to health care. "Health care" is goods and services that are the fruits of some people's intellect and labor. No person has a "right" to the fruits of another's labor.
Uwe: Again with the greatest respect, I believe I said "everyone who is physically in the country must have access to [a] country's health-car services".

But we do agree that "No person has a "right" to the fruits of another's labor" - that's exactly why it's the role of a country's citizens to decide how to slice-up the tax pie (including how much to spend and who has access to health-care). And because this is a citizen's role - the decision of Governments (being def-facto citizens in a representative democracy) becomes the accountability of each of us.

Lots of folk conveniently ignore their accountability for Government decisions which are brought to account at election time and I could launch into a debate on the merits of compulsory voting - but I won't . Sure there are many conflicting considerations when deciding who should get our votes - but there are very few more important priorities for nations in which Maslow's hierarchy of needs are largely satisfied that can justify compromising our humanity to our neighbors who live in the country - regardless of citizen status (IMHO).

Don
 
Last edited:
   #36  

DV52

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
3,620
Reaction score
4,026
Location
Melbourne, Australia
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=194404
universal healthcare in America would only work if healthcare was governed as a utility. (and healthcare as a utility I could support)

the result should be exactly the same for any parent.
the child gets the care, the parents pay for the costs.

unfortunately undocumented often means they simply don't pay and then disappear to repeat all over somewhere else.

any undocumented that receives health care should be immediately reported to INS and deported at first opportunity.

and that should apply to any tax-payer provided service that is attempted to be utilized by a non-citizen.
D-Dub" thanks for the series of "likes" - it's reassuring to have a kind-of kindred spirit in Uwe's bar!

Not sure I agree that "undocumented" parents should be forced to decide whether the condition of their sick child warrants INS (is this your border police?) reporting and deportation. What an absolutely terrible decision to have to make - particularly if there are other children in the family and the needs of the siblings must be weighed against the life of the sick child!! Absolutely terrible decision !!

But I do agree with your view of health care as a utility responsibility of Government - but only as a basic service. In other countries (like Australia) privately funded healthcare providers operate happily together with Tax funded services. However, there must be a strong compliance authority to police the entire industry (this latter issue is Mike R's point - I think)

Don
 
   #37  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
29,999
Reaction score
21,422
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
Amusing... The following piece was written by Willie Brown:

Bad news for Democrats — none of these candidates can beat Trump

There's a short bio of him at the bottom. If you don't know who he is, please read it. Of course what that bio doesn't tell you is that one of front-runner candidates (Kamala Harris) got her start in politics when Willie appointed her to a job at the California Medical Assistance Commission, during his tenure as Speaker of the California State Assembly, while the two were "dating" despite the fact that Willie was married.

-Uwe-
 
   #38  

Mike R

Ross-Tech Employee
Staff member
Joined
Apr 10, 2014
Messages
423
Reaction score
498
Location
Virgo Supercluster
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=126524
Mike: Without trying to take issue with the entire Ross clan - again this is an entirely different issue to the question as to who should have access to healthcare. The disconnect between the size of America's health-care spend and the infant mortality rate and citizen longevity is clearly a matter of efficiency and effectiveness of how the monies are deployed (as your link says).

It's an even more obscene observation to know that a sizable quantity of the tax purse that is meant to provide health care in your country is being siphoned into the pockets of "crime syndicates" - appalling that your Government has (and continues) to permit this!!
I don't find the two to be mutually exclusive. If pockets weren't being lined, and if things were done more efficiently. I, and I'm sure many others would be open to providing healthcare for everyone. However, so long as a majority of that money is being wasted, I will not support universal healthcare.

I don't know how much wasteful spending goes on in Australia or even other parts of the world such that do have such systems like Europe, but the US just bleeds fountains of money into the most obscure and inane places.

If the Government really wanted to fix the problems this country is experiencing right now, there are a few things it needs to do IMO.

1. Close tax loopholes. In the US, it only takes ~$400,000 a year to be in the top 1%. However a vast majority of those in the top 1% don't have enough money and resources to actually take advantage of these loopholes, and often times end up paying an effective tax rate at 50% of higher. This is often times the small business owners who do account for a large portion of jobs here. Meanwhile those in the Top 0.01% (i.e. CEO's of huge companies) will pay effective tax rates lower than 20% because they have the best of the best tax people and can more readily shift their funds and assets in way that aren't really feasible for the rest in the top 1%. This isn't to say that I think the rest of the people in the top 1% shouldn't be paying higher taxes than the middle class, but the whole notion of attacking these "greedy rich people". Is very misguided and not at all reaching the intended targets that those in the middle class have in mind.

2. Cutting the useless spending. Instead of writing some long winded blurb on this feel free to read this list here. And this was a decade ago, I'm sure things have only gotten worse since then.

3. As previously alluded to, I think it's gotten to the point where banks and healthcare services need to have stricter regulations imposed upon them. They've shown that they clearly can not handle themselves responsibly. The finer details of HOW to go about this, I quite frankly haven't the slightest clue, but something has to give there.

4. Get the f*** out of the rest of the world. Drastically reduce foreign aid and fighting proxy wars. One great notable example is how much money is hemorrhaged into Israel alone. Cut down the size of the military (QUALITY > quantity). Sorry but when you are allies with a vast majority of the other world powers (besides Russia and China) You don't need to spend the most on military over 2 fold. If that means turning away young teens looking to enlist, then so be it. If you want more details on the ridiculousness of the size of the US Military, watch this video.

What I feel won't have an impact either way, is lowering or raising taxes. Lowering taxes encourages businesses but results in a lower portion of the pie. Raising taxes, discourages businesses but increasing the portion of the pie. From the government's perspective, the tax rate ultimately becomes relatively unimpactful.
 
Last edited:
   #39  

D-Dub

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
618
Reaction score
627
Location
US 2014 GTI Drivers Edition/DSG
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=272151
@DV52, yes it is a terrible decision to make. But if it is as life or death, then it should be something that any parent would not think twice about.

Aside from that, these people are in the country *ILLEGALLY* to begin with.

There are numerous ways for people to legally immigrate to this country (and any other country).

I have many friends who are immigrants, who came in through the legal process.

Why should anyone who cannot follow the basic tenants of law, be welcomed into the country they are breaking the laws of ?

If I or another decided to move to Australia and became a bum, living off your taxes and paying none of my own, would you find that acceptable?

What if I or another came to australia to take your job for a cheaper wage because your employer could pay me cash with no taxes or insurance or other accountability ?

What if I or another came to australia to become a local crime overlord that enslaves your children with drugs and other illegal and immoral activities?

I can't imagine anyone finding that acceptable, well except perhaps for those actually doing those very things and more.
 
   #40  

Mike R

Ross-Tech Employee
Staff member
Joined
Apr 10, 2014
Messages
423
Reaction score
498
Location
Virgo Supercluster
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=126524
What if I or another came to australia to take your job for a cheaper wage because your employer could pay me cash with no taxes or insurance or other accountability?
Ideally you (or Australians in your example here) work hard enough so that those who you fear are coming for your job would not be skilled enough to take your job. In other words, get a job that is not a minimum wage job requiring next to no skills and you don't have much to feat in that case.

I do feel like national minimum wage does need to increase, $9 is fair in my opinion as it hasn't risen in quite some time now. (I'm actually shocked this didn't become one of Hillary's grand plans). The reason a lot of people have been against raising the minimum wage as it should be is because those proposing increases are suggesting ludicrous increases of more than 2-fold. There's a general rule of thumb when increasing or decreasing anything in the market. If you do it in increments of less than 10% than people will basically never even notice the difference. Did you know Snickers bars actually used to be bigger than they are now? Most people didn't realize it was actually shrunk.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/25401945
The weight of a Mars bar has dropped from 58 grams to 51 and Snickers has gone from 58g to 48g.
tl;dr the answer is do it every 4-5 years by roughly 5-10%



So following the trends of the last 35 years or so, it would be wise to raise the current minimum wage to about $8.40. The thing people making minimum wage and those manipulating them don't understand (or pretend not to understand) is that minimum wage jobs aren't supposed to be long term solutions. They're primarily for young individuals, part time workers. No one should intend to rely on such a job to support a whole family, that's never been their purpose or intention.
 
Top