posted November 13, 2016 12:36 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by yungang_grotto:
It's becoming a matter of interest to me how people can ignore reasonable arguments completely. It is truly amazing.

---

Yes I agree with you that Trump isn't a saint. Although I am a huge Trump fan but I have to agree with that. In fact I doubt anybody is a saint, as most human beings are governed by self interests.

posted November 13, 2016 12:37 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Venusincap89:
But how does Thomas Piketty's argument contrast with Trump's policies? Because the reasoning behind such theory seems to coincide with the purpose of Trump's policies. Although I am a free-market Austrian economics guy, what Trump is doing isn't letting the market correct itself. He is stepping in to bring changes.

---

He says two different, contradictory things.

Trump's answer to the ACA is "following free market principles" when it is in fact the supposed 'free market' which caused it in the first place. Whatever its problems, the ACA attempted to address the healthcare crisis, but Trump pretends it is the main problem.

Trump wants to "Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines." That will not solve the problem and will only benefit the very largest insurance companies.

Those are his main 'free market' proposals.

But - here is where I tend to agree with Trump:

quote:

---

Block-grant Medicaid to the states. Nearly every state already offers benefits beyond what is required in the current Medicaid structure. The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead. States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to preserve our precious resources.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform

---

So even he acknowledges that there must be public support for healthcare and that the current federal system is doing some good. Social programs need not be managed from afar.

Medicare and SSI have very little overhead, but I agree with him it is better managed by the states, but that is no reason to not have universal national coverage. That can still be managed at the state level.

We don't have to reinvent the wheel here. We just have a different scale with 330 million people. Other democracies have already shown how to get high quality health insurance for their citizens:

1. France - They use a combination of private and public coverage, and nearly everyone in France has health insurance. Socialized medicine.
2. Italy ... hardly any Italians have private health insurance. Socialized medicine.
3. Andora ... has found success in modelling their system after the French. {b]More socialized medicine[/b].
4. Malta - Today, they provide free healthcare services for all citizens. Totally socialized medicine.
5. Singapore - It balances services between the government and private companies. Base-level services are provided by the government. Socialized medcine.
6. England ... has healthcare that is free for everyone and paid for with taxes. {b]The very definition of socialized medicine[/b].

http://gazettereview.com/2016/04/countries-with-the-best-health-care/

Let's all stop pretending Obamacare was dreamed up by Obama and company. The framework and working principles of the ACA was first passed by the GOP-dominated Massachusetts legislature and signed into law there by then Governor Mitt Romney. It was conceived by the highly conservative Heritage Foundation circa 1980 as an answer/prevention of socialized medicine (which had first been considered by the Nixon administration). The ACA is a system of patchworks and exchanges designed to give Big Insurance more customers and it has succeeded in that.

Any flaws it has are due to the fact that its design bent it over backwards to prop up for-profit insurance companies that have never given a single minute of health care themselves, but which stick their grubby hands into the exchange between doctor and patient in order to extract profit and hold sick people hostage in the process.

Obamacare stopped the exclusions based on pre-existing conditions, and pressed upon all the citizenry to join (or pay a fine) in the attempt to enlarge the buying power. Covering the entire nation from the tax pool in a non-profit fashion is a far more efficient way to do it.

Thank you for admitting the prejudice in the term 'free loader.'

I have to go eat dinner now, but I look forward to continuing this civil discussion for as long as Randall permits it.

posted November 13, 2016 12:47 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Venusincap89:
First it was racism, and then he changed it to prejudice, he subtly manipulates the flow of discussion to his advantage. It works quite well because he is a well spoken, educated man but I can't help but to argue that you too are a hypocritical man

---

I'm right here still in the room. You can address me directly.

I am self-educated. I have no college degree. So remember that, because you can do it too -- and without paying a single cent to state colleges or taking a single dime in public grants or subsidies to do it.

Pre-judging someone or especially a group of 'free loaders' is racism when it especially focuses on ethnicity, which the Trump campaign and Obama haters have done for 8 years.

Many Obama haters cannot admit they have at least some racial prejudice in them, even though it is clearly evident by the level of disgust and the types of lies that have been spread about him or his policies. This is not the burning cross on the lawn racism, but the behind-their-backs racism that I know quite well from my near 39 years in the south.

You can play semantics, but you can't fool me. I know all the code words and the images they are intended to induce.

posted November 13, 2016 12:58 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kannon McAfee:

Trump wants to "Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines." That will not solve the problem and will only benefit the very largest insurance companies.

[/B]

---

That's a fair point. Trump's new policy on the sale of health insurance across the state lines could very well benefit the largest company, rather than driving the competition and benefit the consumers.

but what does such policy have to do with the fact that ACA was first passed by the Massachusetts legislature??

posted November 13, 2016 01:10 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kannon McAfee:
I'm right here still in the room. You can address me directly.

I am self-educated. I have no college degree. So remember that, because you can do it too -- and without paying a single cent to state colleges or [b]taking a single dime in public grants or subsidies to do it.

Pre-judging someone or especially a group of 'free loaders' is racism when it especially focuses on ethnicity, which the Trump campaign and Obama haters have done for 8 years.

Many Obama haters cannot admit they have at least some racial prejudice in them, even though it is clearly evident by the level of disgust and the types of lies that have been spread about him or his policies. This is not the burning cross on the lawn racism, but the behind-their-backs racism that I know quite well from my near 39 years in the south.

You can play semantics, but you can't fool me. I know all the code words and the images they are intended to induce.

[/B]

---

I respect that you are self educated, but Sorry bud once again I gotta argue that you are once again being a hypocrite. And I don't appreciate your cherry picking either. You are forcing the whole racism thing beyond and above, it's simply insane. In fact according to your logic, every interviewers in job applications are racist and prejudiced if they don't hire.