Cruz Versus Sanders

[Bill the Cat]

No, its about insuring ones ability to pay at great profit to the Industry, and great profit is their main concern, which limits the buyers ability to actually be able to pay.

Do you understand how investing works? Would you invest your money in a company that only pays you $5 for every $100 you invest or would you rather invest in a company that returns more? And if your company can't compete with other companies and their rate of return, you will get no investors, and thus no growth. And ironically, the insurance companies didn't start making any decent profits until Obamacare became mandatory.

Having insurance lowers financial barriers to quality care. It also increases perceived quality of care. That's indisputable.

If the insurance industries main purpose is how much profit they can make, then we really don't need them do we.

No. That's why health insurance should return to an optional purchase.

Government can do the same job, at less cost, being that peoples actual health is the point, not profits.

No they can't. Basic microeconomics shows that when the government gets involved in price control, supply drops. There will also be a shortage, demand will exceed supply; this leads to waiting lists and the emergence of black markets as people try to overcome the shortage of the good and pay well above market price.
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/62...disadvantages/

Yes they are corrupt, you just haven't been paying attention. They are not actually interested in the health care that people receive and they use every trick in the book and loophole in the law to get around covering people in their time of need.

No they don't.

The National Committee for Quality Assurance is an independent, nonprofit group. Their goal is to improve health care quality. They created a set of measures called the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS®).1 These measures are used to rate health plans. They rate quality of care, access to care and member satisfaction. More than 90% of America’s health plans use these measures.

You don't know what you are talking about.

I'm a veteran, dumbass. I've used the VA. My daughter interns with the biologists at our VA hospital. My sister was a nurse there for a few years. My uncle used the VA hospital in North Carolina for 35 years. My cube mate worked there for 3 years in IT. I know exactly what I am talking about.

The actual care at the V.A. for instance is excellent

It has greatly improved thanks to some outsourcing and converting from government employees to contractors, implementing some necessary IT measures, and allowing vets to go to private doctors for routine visits. But the facts remain. The VA Office of Inspector General released separate reports on clinics in Alaska, Illinois, and California showing extended delays for care and general mismanagement.

and if not for the funding problem, thank you Congress, so to would be the whole system be.

Money doesn't come from a magic hat. That's the problem with the current administration. They think that money will just magically appear to pay for everything.

I'll take your word on that for now, but it has nothing to do with it. If the middle man and their profit gouging is eliminated, then government paid doctors can be payed comparably and health care would still cost less. Its really just common sense, cut out the enormous profits and there is less costs and better healthcare for all.

That's a pipe dream. Eliminating millions of private sector jobs, relying on the government to build hospitals and set medical prices, and the necessary increase in government employees (replete with benefits and retirement costs) will necessitate taxes going through the roof. It's not common sense to continue to bloat the government retirement system, among other numerous considerations.

Didn't say it wasn't the best, but they were sent into Iraq with shoddy equipment resulting in enormous unnecesary casualties.

The equipment wasn't shoddy. It was just not designed to perfectly address the improvised tactics the enemy was using.

But even still, whether you disagree with that or not, the war itself was unnecessary and caused an enormous amount of casualties.

I don't think it was unnecessary. Sadaam was a threat. Any suggestion to the contrary is historical revisionism.

If the government is going to send them into war, then the government is responsible for properly funding The V.A. to accomodate them when they come home wounded, they don't.

They fund the VA the best they can. The problem comes in when the VA executives are wasting at ridiculous levels. Hundreds of millions wasted on aesthetics on this one project alone, instead of on patient care. Almost a million dollars wasted on executive conferences at resorts. Billions wasted on project delays and legal expenses. The funding is there, but it is being wasted.

Excellent actual care, less funding.

Unreasonable wait times, wasteful and downright fraudulent spending, and general mismanagement.

If a system is overburdened and underfunded then that is going to have a big effect on managment. Try putting two and two together Bill.

Oh, I have. And I provided evidence that proves my claim that the VA is poorly managed and wasteful with their funding. Yes, it is overburdened, but underfunded? The facts say no. The funding is mismanaged.

Good, glad you agree. So throw the bums out, get rid of the profiteers that back them, and properly fund the system.

From where? Where is the trillions of dollars to manage the entire US Healthcare industry going to come from?

Thanks to anyone who supported deregulation of the banks. Don't be such a partison, republicans are still in favor of deregulation of the banks. Hmmm, wonder why that could be?

No they aren't. Not like Frank and Clinton were.

Seems all you have is talking points Bill. For one thing, they are not Obama's ideas, they are the result of the coalition put together by Obama to look into the matter and to insure that the Country isn't put into that situation again.

So, if it is a Democrat's plan, it's a "coalition", but if it is a Republican's, it's all theirs.

The ball rests in Obama's hands, regardless of who passed it to him.

Of course Wall street and their lobbyists got to Congress again in order that they block the legislation as much as possible.

And the left and their lobbyists do the same.

The fact that you didn't answer the question is telling.

It was a conspiracy theory level accusation. Why dignify that with a response?

[jordanriver]

Money is a thing. In and of itself, it can do nothing. Greed is the root of evil, and that is expressed as the love of money. Before currency existed, the accumulation of goods existed.

ok I get it.

Kind of like guns right?

I am on the side of everybody (default) has the right to bear weapons, but the right can be taken away from them if they use their weapons to harm innocent people.

I am also of the opinion that the weapon known as "money" should also be taken away from people who use it to harm the citizens (like traitors for example)

[klaus54]

ok I get it.

Kind of like guns right?

I am on the side of everybody (default) has the right to bear weapons, but the right can be taken away from them if they use their weapons to harm innocent people.

I am also of the opinion that the weapon known as "money" should also be taken away from people who use it to harm the citizens (like traitors for example)

What will take the place of money?

If your answer is "nothing", how will goods and services be produced and distributed through a population?

[jordanriver]

What will take the place of money?

If your answer is "nothing", how will goods and services be produced and distributed through a population?

are you a teacher (is relevant question)

[klaus54]

are you a teacher (is relevant question)

Yes.

Now don't weasel out of the question.

[jordanriver]

Yes.

Now don't weasel out of the question.

every time I run into a teacher, (granted its only been about 19 times so far, I don't troll schools, it scares kids)

....but, I always use that opportunity (well, not always, but for the last couple of years) I ask them, can they tell what a student is qualified for after 12 years.

So far they've (just the tiny sampling I did) all said they can.

Is this true, Klaus? Can you tell what your students are qualified to do, and what their limitations are.


........oh, your question, right.

I would like to see money replaced with egalitarianism. Everybody works, (unless the LOCAL community instead of some indifferent psychological services social worker, determines the citizen truly is too handicapped to do anything) except the citizens who have earned their retirement.

And if a student disagrees with their group of teachers' final evaluation and job assignment, they can appeal, try something else, (it all pays the same, nothing, except for free housing, food, clothing, medical, police protection, fire protection, armed forces protection,
entertainment, pet services,
and all these services people receive free services from me.

parasites go to work camps. something will be found for them to do.

Supervisors are elected by groups of workers.

no owners

no "job creators"

no despot running the country, temporary leaders will live in a glass house, if they want to lead, they have to agree to lose all their privacy.

No Stalins , not for Americans.

[One Bad Pig]

[Yttrium]

I would like to see money replaced with egalitarianism. Everybody works, (unless the LOCAL community instead of some indifferent psychological services social worker, determines the citizen truly is too handicapped to do anything) except the citizens who have earned their retirement.

And if a student disagrees with their group of teachers' final evaluation and job assignment, they can appeal, try something else, (it all pays the same, nothing, except for free housing, food, clothing, medical, police protection, fire protection, armed forces protection,
entertainment, pet services,
and all these services people receive free services from me.

parasites go to work camps. something will be found for them to do.

Supervisors are elected by groups of workers.

no owners

no "job creators"

no despot running the country, temporary leaders will live in a glass house, if they want to lead, they have to agree to lose all their privacy.

No Stalins , not for Americans.

Unless I'm missing something, this sounds like idealistic Marxist Communism. That is, Communism as it was meant to be by Marx, and not the versions that were actually put into practice. The workers without their chains.

As we've seen historically, it doesn't work. People will be people. There will always be charismatic/forceful personalities who will think they have the best ways to run things, and oops Stalin. By making people conform, you've delivered them into the hands of a tyrant. Not to mention the fact that such a system is going to stifle technological progress, since there's no incentive for it.

But if you could really pull off an ideal society like that... Sounds awful. I'd hate it.

[jordanriver]

Unless I'm missing something, this sounds like idealistic Marxist Communism. That is, Communism as it was meant to be by Marx, and not the versions that were actually put into practice. The workers without their chains.

As we've seen historically, it doesn't work. .

yeah, you're right

look how we have to bail out Red China...

....er, wait a minute

[Yttrium]

yeah, you're right

look how we have to bail out Red China...

....er, wait a minute

Do you consider Red China to be an example of your idealistic society?

[jordanriver]

Do you consider Red China to be an example of your idealistic society?

look Yttrium, you point was that Communism does not work, and you only cited the failed example, USSR.

And nobody ever got that chance to see if that would work, according to the some of the West's most ardent Capitalists, America caused Soviet downfall, voices like Colin Powell, Alexander Haig, Margaret Thatcher, Conservative think-tank Heritage.org and other popular best selling Conservative Authors..(its disingenuous of the West to tell Soviets "your system will never work", then knock down their system and say, "see, we told you your system would never work"

not to mention the fact they never recovered from loss of 20 to 40 million lives during Patriotic War against Germany

[Yttrium]

look Yttrium, you point was that Communism does not work, and you only cited the failed example, USSR.

And nobody ever got that chance to see if that would work, according to the some of the West's most ardent Capitalists, America caused Soviet downfall, voices like Colin Powell, Alexander Haig, Margaret Thatcher, Conservative think-tank Heritage.org and other popular best selling Conservative Authors..(its disingenuous of the West to tell Soviets "your system will never work", then knock down their system and say, "see, we told you your system would never work"

not to mention the fact they never recovered from loss of 20 to 40 million lives during Patriotic War against Germany

I only mentioned Stalin because you did. When I said that we've seen historically that it doesn't work, I was referring to every Communist state ever. It doesn't work because they can't follow the ideal, because those strong personalities take over and move things away from what Marx intended. Happens every time. You just can't avoid it.

[jordanriver]

I only mentioned Stalin because you did. When I said that we've seen historically that it doesn't work, I was referring to every Communist state ever. It doesn't work because they can't follow the ideal, because those strong personalities take over and move things away from what Marx intended. Happens every time. You just can't avoid it.

American distorted view of Russia is taken out of historical context. Context of Tsarist oppression and landowner oppression.

I believe was going to be bloodbath whether revolution/civil war winners chose capitalism or communism.

Russian revolution was because of the brutality of the owners and government, peasants and city factory slaves who had nothing and had nothing to lose in desparate living conditions.

American revolution because the leading wealthy colonists didn't like British Royalty constraints and taxes.

[klaus54]

every time I run into a teacher, (granted its only been about 19 times so far, I don't troll schools, it scares kids)

....but, I always use that opportunity (well, not always, but for the last couple of years) I ask them, can they tell what a student is qualified for after 12 years.

So far they've (just the tiny sampling I did) all said they can.

Is this true, Klaus? Can you tell what your students are qualified to do, and what their limitations are.


........oh, your question, right.

I would like to see money replaced with egalitarianism. Everybody works, (unless the LOCAL community instead of some indifferent psychological services social worker, determines the citizen truly is too handicapped to do anything) except the citizens who have earned their retirement.

And if a student disagrees with their group of teachers' final evaluation and job assignment, they can appeal, try something else, (it all pays the same, nothing, except for free housing, food, clothing, medical, police protection, fire protection, armed forces protection,
entertainment, pet services,
and all these services people receive free services from me.

parasites go to work camps. something will be found for them to do.

Supervisors are elected by groups of workers.

no owners

no "job creators"

no despot running the country, temporary leaders will live in a glass house, if they want to lead, they have to agree to lose all their privacy.

No Stalins , not for Americans.

Most of the time, yes. But I taught mostly college juniors. But your answer appears to support MY point about lack of opportunities to change career paths for a 30 year-old in Commie-Land?

What if someone chooses not to work?

As for the rest of your rambling drivel:

Nelson_Ha-Ha.jpg

[klaus54]

American distorted view of Russia is taken out of historical context. Context of Tsarist oppression and landowner oppression.

I believe was going to be bloodbath whether revolution/civil war winners chose capitalism or communism.

Russian revolution was because of the brutality of the owners and government, peasants and city factory slaves who had nothing and had nothing to lose in desparate living conditions.

American revolution because the leading wealthy colonists didn't like British Royalty constraints and taxes.

...And then came Stalin.

Bwaaahhhahaha...