The strange greatness of Donald Trump

[Cow Poke]

I was worried for the folk in Amarillo. whew!

Had a very enjoyable 2 hour lunch with Cowpoke today.

I had to check - yes, it was 2 hours, but it flew by quickly. We need to do that again soon.

[seer]

I had to check - yes, it was 2 hours, but it flew by quickly. We need to do that again soon.

You didn't eat with your fingers again, did you?

[Cow Poke]

You didn't eat with your fingers again, did you?

Yes, I did not. And I, for the most part, used my manners.

[carpedm9587]

It sounds to me like you are arguing that reduced approval of the NHS specifically does not necessarily equate to reduced approval of socialized medicine in general?

Yes.

[carpedm9587]

Any socialist medical system HAS to set the prices for what doctors are paid. In the UK that has ended up causing a doctor shortage which is why they are wanting to see 15 people at a time, so by the fact that you propose socialist medicine you are IMPLICITLY proposing this. Socialized medicine can't work if the doctors can charge whatever they want to.

In a pay-for-procedure model (which may or may not be the best idea, but is the current system and could continue under a socialized single-payer model), all that is determined is the price for the procedure. This is currently negotiated by insurance companies, so all we are talking about is a shift to a government-negotiated model with a bigger pool of "insured" participants (I don't hear anyone complain that the insurance companies are telling the doctors what they get paid...?).

Further, the reimbursement for a service is only one part of possible compensation (though the dominant part). Compensation is dictated by a combination of revenues and expenses. When a doctor works for a group - there are an enormous number of variables that can go into that formula, so it is a stretch to say that the government is dictating "what a doctor gets paid."

In the present situation, if your insurance refuses to pay, you can appeal to the government regulator or sue, as I threatened to do once. When the government decides what treatment you can have, there is no higher place to appeal. Their 'no' is final.

That depends on how it is structure and what oversight is put in place. There is no reason the system cannot be structured with a review board that is independent and comprises doctors, lay people, financial experts, etc.

The reality is that no society has the money to pay for all the citizen's health care. All society's ration it via some means. In china, only the powerful have access to healthcare. The average joe has to save his money to pay for a surgery.

This is a claim without any backing, so I'll leave it at that. As I noted to MM, there will always be a trade-off between cost and coverage. But then that is true today as well.

I expect when people read something that they remember it or look it up to refresh their memory. You could have found those anti-Semitic verses if you had but had the curiousity. I don't like having to do research other people could easily have done. When you said there was nothing anti-Semitic in Islam, it was clear to me that you are not talking about the islam of the Koran but the Islam in your mind. One thing that does set me off is people being unwilling to verify what their fingers are about to type. Sorry, rant is over.

No one asked you to do research, GR. Research what you wish, and don't research what you don't want to. and, as I said, I don't agree they ARE antisemitic. Two of them I was familiar with. The third was new to me - or at least I don't remember it - so thanks for the reminder/info.

Then we agree.

As far as I can tell, no. I would never suggests that we should be barring Muslims (as a group) from entry into the U.S., as you appear to be arguing, any more than I would agree that we should be barring German's a a group. I WOULD agree that we should be barring anyone with an intent to do harm, which would include dangerous Islamic extremists and German Nazi's. But I don't need to include "Islamic" or "German" as qualifiers. The fact is, I would not want to see dangerous extremists or Nazi's of any kind entering this country.

Yes, I know many are peaceful, but the problem lies in sorting them out. Every terrorist nutbag has been peaceful until he wasn't. Polls show 5-8% of Muslims support the extremist. Telling that 5-8% apart from the others is hard. A bigger problem to me is their general desire that Sharia be the law where they live. I don't want my granddaughters living under Sharia ever.
https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

It is also difficult for my wife to tell the difference between a man who might do her harm and one who might not when she is walking down a street; that does not justify getting rid of all men.

So let's compare 2 sentences

Koran: take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors

Comparison: take not the Malaysians for your friends and protectors

As I understand you, the first statement is not anti-Semitic which would mean that the 2nd isn't either and still wouldn't be if Blacks were substituted for Malaysians!

I don't see how your argument could possibly hold. Please explain the difference if blacks were substituted for Malaysians--why that wouldn't be racist like the Koran's statement isn't.

You are comparing apples and oranges. The first is a statement about religious belief, and is common to many (most?) religions. Most religions contain warnings about those "outside the faith" that can corrupt the beliefs, lead believers astray, etc. In other words, most religions see other religions as "wrong" and to be avoided less they draw away the faithful. There are prohibitions throughout the bible about "unbelievers," pagan beliefs, and others who can lead you away from the "true faith." Judaic writings do not mention Christianity or Islam because they predate them. The Christian bible does not call out Islam because it pre-dates it, and does not call out Judaism because it is rooted in that religion (though there are strong antisemitic tones in Matthew). Islam post-dates both, so it calls out both.

You cannot make a 1:1 correspondence between these religious prohibitions and an anti-nation-X, anti-race-X, or anti-ethnicity-X statement outside the bounds of a religion. It's simply not comparable.

[carpedm9587]

Carpe describing our healthcare system:

This shows he hasn't thought this through.

Controls are of 2 variety--controls on how much money will be spent or controls on who will get the care.

both controls end up meaning someone either gets bad superficial healthcare and a pat on the head from a doctor, or some people don't see a doctor at all. Which control do you think we should have Carpe?

I disagree with your assumptions. First those are two controls, but they are not necessarily the right ones or only ones. Indeed, if "universal" coverage is to be extended, then it means the "who" is moot; everyone will have the same coverage. What is then to be decided is what will be covered, and the priority of treatment. That's called triage - and happens today. And even today I have to call my insurance company to get permission to get an MRI - which is sometimes denied. Personally, I think "elective" procedures should not be covered. I think resources should go to the most urgent need first.

Also, we have had limits on who can see a doctor under the current model. Indeed, the ACA requirement that coverage cannot be denied for pre-existing conditions (which Trump and the Republicans have been trying to get repealed) was exactly such a control.

Bottom line - as I said before - right now the final word on what will be covered is in the hands of a corporation out to maximize its profits - and there is very little competition. I have little/no control over that corporation. I'd be much happier with that being in the hands of the government I elect - where I can raise a stink, vote, or even run for office, if I don't like the choices they are making.

[oxmixmudd]

I disagree with your assumptions. First those are two controls, but they are not necessarily the right ones or only ones. Indeed, if "universal" coverage is to be extended, then it means the "who" is moot; everyone will have the same coverage. What is then to be decided is what will be covered, and the priority of treatment. That's called triage - and happens today. And even today I have to call my insurance company to get permission to get an MRI - which is sometimes denied. Personally, I think "elective" procedures should not be covered. I think resources should go to the most urgent need first.

Also, we have had limits on who can see a doctor under the current model. Indeed, the ACA requirement that coverage cannot be denied for pre-existing conditions (which Trump and the Republicans have been trying to get repealed) was exactly such a control.

Bottom line - as I said before - right now the final word on what will be covered is in the hands of a corporation out to maximize its profits - and there is very little competition. I have little/no control over that corporation. I'd be much happier with that being in the hands of the government I elect - where I can raise a stink, vote, or even run for office, if I don't like the choices they are making.

Not only do the republicans want to do away with the guarantee of coverage for pre-existing conditions, they lie about the fact that is the goal. That is one of the single best elements of the ACA and one of the truly disgusting aspects of for profit insurance without some sort of cohesive system in place to prevent abuse. You have insurance and get sick. You lose a job or change jobs and the insurance industry wants the right to sucker punch you and drop you in your time of need by refusing to cover your 'pre-existing condition'. And the republicans want to give them the right to do that - again.

Jim

[carpedm9587]

Not only do the republicans want to do away with the guarantee of coverage for pre-existing conditions, they lie about the fact that is the goal. That is one of the single best elements of the ACA and one of the truly disgusting aspects of for profit insurance without some sort of cohesive system in place to prevent abuse. You have insurance and get sick. You lose a job or change jobs and the insurance industry wants the right to sucker punch you and drop you in your time of need by refusing to cover your 'pre-existing condition'. And the republicans want to give them the right to do that - again.

Jim

I hope they keep doing it. They are in a precarious position. If they continue to play to Trump, they will delight his base, but alienate a significant percentage of everyone else. They cannot win with just Trump's base - except in deeply red districts/states. On the other hand, if they turn against Trump, they have almost no hope of winning the next primary, because Trump is so loved by his base, so they lose their seats. If they lose their seats, then the party loses its "incumbent" advantage.

They should rename the party "Retrumplicans." :

[carpedm9587]

I keep pointing out that the economy, while doing reasonably well, is not doing as good for the working man as it is for businesses and the wealthy, and that Trump is taking a lot of credit for things that started long before he took office.

More evidence has come out concerning the first. While wages have been increasing, they are not generally increasing as much as COL is increasing (so many people are seeing an effective wage loss) and they are not increasing as fast as corporate profits (which predominantly benefit the wealthy). Wage growth has been on the decline since 2015, and has not been improved by Trump's policies. I've been trying to find the numbers for the last five quarters, but without success. If anyone has them, I'd like to see them.

[rogue06]

Not only do the republicans want to do away with the guarantee of coverage for pre-existing conditions, they lie about the fact that is the goal.

And yet...

Source: Republican senators float bill with protections for pre-existing conditions

Seeking to show Republicans' commitment to protecting those with pre-existing conditions, a group of GOP senators led by Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina is reviving and expanding a bill that would retain at least some of the protections built into Obamacare.

The move is an attempt to address concerns that the popular and ironclad provisions secured by the Affordable Care Act may disappear amid President Donald Trump's renewed drive to overturn the landmark health reform law. It comes as Democrats offer up an array of new proposals for universal, government-backed health coverage.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

AFAICT, every plan that the Trump Administration has put forward included pre-existing conditions. Likewise, the various plans that Republicans in the House and Senate voted on during the first two years of Trump's term has included pre-existing conditions. However, a few of them weren't as extensive as what Obamacare covered.

[carpedm9587]

AFAICT, every plan that the Trump Administration has put forward included pre-existing conditions. Likewise, the various plans that Republicans in the House and Senate voted on during the first two years of Trump's term has included pre-existing conditions. However, a few of them weren't as extensive as what Obamacare covered.

Or not... https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-...ting-condition

[oxmixmudd]

And yet...

Source: Republican senators float bill with protections for pre-existing conditions

Seeking to show Republicans' commitment to protecting those with pre-existing conditions, a group of GOP senators led by Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina is reviving and expanding a bill that would retain at least some of the protections built into Obamacare.

The move is an attempt to address concerns that the popular and ironclad provisions secured by the Affordable Care Act may disappear amid President Donald Trump's renewed drive to overturn the landmark health reform law. It comes as Democrats offer up an array of new proposals for universal, government-backed health coverage.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

AFAICT, every plan that the Trump Administration has put forward included pre-existing conditions. Likewise, the various plans that Republicans in the House and Senate voted on during the first two years of Trump's term has included pre-existing conditions. However, a few of them weren't as extensive as what Obamacare covered.

Tillis' bill is a bait and switch.



https://www.latimes.com/#nt=mastheadnavbar


what is happening in general is a very deceptive play on words. The promise is that you will not be denied coverage, which people think means if they have cancer and have to switch insurance, they will be covered. But then comes the bait abd switch. Yes, the insurance comoany cant deny you insurance 'coverage', but they CAN refuse to pay for the 'treatment' of specific pre-existing conditions.

So its just a big, fat lie facilitated by abusing the common understanding that being granted coverage means the insurance will in fact cover the treatment of that condition.


It is just amazing how evil people can be when it comes to making money.

Jim

[carpedm9587]

Tillis' bill is a bait and switch.



https://www.latimes.com/#nt=mastheadnavbar


what is happening in general is a very deceptive play on words. The promise is that you will not be denied coverage, which people think means if they have cancer and have to switch insurance, they will be covered. But then comes the bait abd switch. Yes, the insurance comoany cant deny you insurance 'coverage', but they CAN refuse to pay for the 'treatment' of specific pre-existing conditions.

So its just a big, fat lie facilitated by abusing the common understanding that being granted coverage means the insurance will in fact cover the treatment of that condition.


It is just amazing how evil people can be when it comes to making money.

Jim

I don't think that link is going where you think it is going...

[Mountain Man]

Tillis' bill is a bait and switch.



https://www.latimes.com/#nt=mastheadnavbar


what is happening in general is a very deceptive play on words. The promise is that you will not be denied coverage, which people think means if they have cancer and have to switch insurance, they will be covered. But then comes the bait abd switch. Yes, the insurance comoany cant deny you insurance 'coverage', but they CAN refuse to pay for the 'treatment' of specific pre-existing conditions.

So its just a big, fat lie facilitated by abusing the common understanding that being granted coverage means the insurance will in fact cover the treatment of that condition.


It is just amazing how evil people can be when it comes to making money.

Jim

So what you're saying is that it's a perpetuation of the Obamacare lie that health insurance is synonymous with healthcare (a lot of people who were forced to sign up for the "free" Obamacare were often shocked to discover that it cost more and covered less than their previous insurance, including, in some cases, lifesaving treatments).

But here's the thing: why are we looking to government to fix a problem that is largely of their own making? As Ronald Reagan famously said, "Among the most frightening words in the English language are 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'"

[oxmixmudd]

I don't think that link is going where you think it is going...

sorry:

https://www.latimes.com/business/hil...828-story.html


Jim