United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Trumps not a liar. Hes a madman.
Source:
WAPO
URL Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin ... ry.html?utm_term=.4d19c67ddbb1
Published: May 30, 2018
Author: Dana Milbank
Post Date: 2018-05-30 07:47:55 by Jameson
Keywords: out, of, control
Views: 5939
Comments: 62
Even by President Trump’s standards, this Memorial Day weekend was memorable for the sheer volume of balderdash, bunk, poppycock and patent nonsense flowing from the White House. Balderdash: Trump went after the “failing and corrupt” New York Times for citing a senior White House official “who doesn’t exist” and admonished the newspaper to “use real people, not phony sources.” It turned out the senior official in question had spoken at a White House briefing arranged by Trump’s aides and attended by dozens of reporters. Bunk: Trump attacked “the 13 Angry Democrats” working for Robert S. Mueller III, apparently referring to prior party registration. But Mueller himself is a Republican, appointed by a Republican who was himself appointed by Trump. Poppycock: He called for “pressure on the Democrats to end the horrible law that separates children from there [sic] parents once they cross the Border into the U.S.” There is no such law, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions has acknowledged that family separation “inevitably” results from Trump’s “zero- tolerance” enforcement policy. Patent nonsense: “Who’s going to give back the young and beautiful lives (and others) that have been devastated and destroyed by the phony Russia Collusion Witch Hunt?” Trump asked. I can picture the GoFundMe campaign: “Paul Manafort, a young and beautiful 69-year-old, had a promising career ahead of him selling access to the White House before he was cruelly indicted . . . ” Early in this weekend’s monsoon of malarkey, New York Times White House reporter Maggie Haberman tweeted that Trump told “demonstrable falsehoods” — and she was roundly ridiculed on Twitter for failing to say Trump was lying. She defended herself by saying Trump’s pronouncements “can be hard to label” because “he often thinks whatever he says is what’s real.” Haberman is right, but there’s another reason not to label Trump’s untruths “lies”: Calling him a liar lets him off easy. A liar, by definition, knows he’s not telling the truth. Trump’s behavior is worse: With each day it becomes more obvious he can’t distinguish between fact and fantasy. It’s an illness, and it’s spreading. I’ve been writing for two years about his seeming inability to separate truth from falsehood: from his claim that he opposed the Iraq War to his belief that his rainy inauguration was “really sunny.” The man who ghostwrote Trump’s “Art of the Deal” marveled at Trump’s “ability to convince himself that whatever he is saying at any given moment is true.” Poster Comment: Thanks for telling us what we already knew.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-14) not displayed.
.
.
.
#15. To: Jameson (#0)
No senior White House official said a June 12 summit would be impossible, yet the New York Times reported, "keeping the existing date was all but impossible" citing "one senior official". So I'd ask the New York Times which senior White House official said a June 12 summit would be impossible. Granted, a senior White House official did speak on the matter, and there is a transcript, but he never said a June 12 summit would be impossible. The New York Times reported this purposely to discredit Trump who had said the day before that June 12 was still possible.
Fair enough. I take no issue with any of your points. adopt the French health care system, How does the French system differ from the Canadians'? ***There is a 0.00% chance of this sort of reform occurring under republican leadership***
Which drove up the cost of health insurance for everyone. It also mandated coverage, forced people into plans they didn't want, covered things they didn't need, and caused insurance companies to withdraw from markets. Unworkable is an understatement, given that Obama was determined to make it work at any price.
Trump wasn't attacking Mueller. He was attacking the 13 investigators, registered as Democrats (one of whom attended Hillary Clinton’s election-night party) working for him. Can Trump expect a fair investigation from this group? Can Trump trust them not to leak their preliminary findings during the mid-term election?
Medicine for profit has been a terrible failure. It is the profit taken by the providers, insurers, brokers, and bureaucrats that has driven up the cost of health care. The ACA is simply a convenient scapegoat for price gouging.
Yes, of course.
Sure there is. It's called DACA and it legalizes the children of illegals but not the parents. The parents are subject to deportation. The children are not. "family separation “inevitably” results from Trump’s “zero- tolerance tolerance” enforcement policy." Family separation “inevitably” results from Trump’s enforcement of federal law.
But if all the investigators were registered Republicans, you'd have been screaming "Coverup!" from day one.
Don't try to put words in my mouth. I don't believe in fairy-tales and conspiracy theories
Nope. Regulating health insurance has been a terrible failure. What would happen to car insurance rates if the auto insurance companies were forced to accept pre-existing conditions? Or were forced to also cover teenage drivers under their parents' policy? Or were forced to cover tires, oil changes, and car washes? Let doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies compete in a free market. That will drive down costs. But ... but … the poor. Fuck' em. Get a job that offers health insurance. Which means they have to complete high school, not have babies, and stay off drugs. If they refuse to do what the rest of us have to do, then that's THEIR choice.
Right!! Like the elderly, or the disabled, or children, or the homeless vets.... Wait until it happens to your family.
Typical elitist Republican.
Yeah. Paid by the government, not the taxpayers. Wait. How would you do that? Very first paragraph and you're already in la-la land. Next you'll be saying something about "From each according to their abilities. To each according to their needs". "I do not believe that private insurance provides any improvement to the quality of medical care" Then how do you explain people coming here from Canada, the UK and elsewhere for their medical care? "Legal reform should remove jury trials from medical malpractice cases" Let the medical experts testify in front of a jury. They can handle it. You want legal reform? Institute "loser pays" and put an end to frivolous, "legal lottery" lawsuits where it's less expensive to settle than fight.
That's the way it was until the passage of EMTALA in 1986. Coincidentally, that's when healthcare costs started to rise. At least the poor are covered by our tax dollars. Prior to 1986 they had to rely on their own savings, family, friends, community and church for help. And back then nobody was too keen on helping some lazy-assed, drug using, high school dropout, never-worked-a -day-in-their-lives, just-out-of-prison, irresponsible single person with 8 kids. Meaning, people back then had their shit together and participated in society, never knowing when they might need that society to help them out during hard times.
Even if Medicare reimburses the doctor less than his costs of treating the patient? Doctors use the profits from private insurance reimbursement to help pay for their Medicare patients. Which is why doctors limit the number of Medicare patients. "Cut military spending and raise taxes to pay for it." Why not cut all the social programs, including education, instead of the military? California, by the way, looked into universal health care. Cost? $400 billion. California budget? $183 billion. They would have to cut everything and double taxes to pay for it. And they'd still have a $40 billion shortfall.
(1) Universal Medicare. In France everybody has health insurance, just like everybody in America over age 65 does. The French Medicare agency is the insurer (not for profit). (2) In France, most doctors are independent, but younger doctors are still working for the public hospitals. (3) So therefore, in France, doctors offices, whether public or private, do not have billing departments. You go to the doctor, of your choice, including specialists - just like you choose your doctor in America. In America, you are limited by "in network", and in Canada, you must go through your primary care physician and be prescribed to see a specialist. So, in Canada there are quotas and limits, and the doctors work for the government. In America, private insurance companies impose limits. But in France you, the patient, are absolutely free to chose any doctor you like, and the doctors take whatever patients they want, because - unlike in Canada - the doctors are not controlled by the government, and unlike in the US, the doctors are not controlled by the state either. In France, you go to the doctor, and you pay him with cash, check, or credit card, for service. You then take the receipt and send it to the insurer, which is Medicare, and Medicare sends you a reimbursement check for 80% of it. You cover the 20% co-pay. If you're poor, you qualify for French welfare, and they pay the 20%. If you're REALLY poor, you get the welfare payment voucher before you go to the doctor. So, in France, there is no medical rationing, no waiting list, and doctors are independent. The doctors who work for the state hospitals are, of course, on the government payroll, but they don't have the rationing and cost limitation mentality that Canadian and British doctors do. In short, the Canadian system is aimed at providing health care in the way that is cheapest per capita, and does so through limiting what patients can do, whom they can see, and rationing care: there are waiting lists for procedures, some operations are not scheduled for those who are deemed, essentially, "too old to be worth the cost". And in Canada, there is no opt out from the public system at all. The British system, likewise, controls costs by controlling patients: whom they may see, what operations they may get. The French system is exactly like the American system insofar as the patient is totally free to choose the doctors, or specialists he chooses. There are no gatekeepers. And the French are freer in this regard than Americans, because Americans have to choose "in network" doctors or the costs are prohibitive, but in France, the patient is always paying the doctor himself, so the doctor has no relationship at all with any insurance company. Rather, in France the relationship with the insurance is entirely between the individual and the Social Security Administration. The patient sends in the bill, and he generally gets sent a check for 80% of the price of it (per the schedule). There are, of course, private clinics with chic clientele, often foreign, who charge much higher than the schedule price. This is not because the doctors are better, usually, but because the high price is intended to discourage anybody but the foreign sheiks from using it. The pricing acts as the exclusivity bar. The American system is the only system that approximates the French system in terms of the absolute freedom of choice, but the French are much freer than we are, because we are limited by insurance company lists, and the Medicare pricing lists in America are aimed at rationing care. The pricing in France is more generous for doctors. So, what you get in France is top-level American-style quality and advanced care, with universal availability, and universal, non-employment-based insurance. The medical care is at the same as top-level American care, and the freedom is greater. Canada has nothing like those features. Of course, the French system costs more than twice as much per capita as the Canadian system, and is only about 30% cheaper, per capita, than the Americans, it is the most expensive of all of the national health systems BY FAR. What the French were aiming for was universal TOP END health care available to EVERYBODY, including the bottom of the poor, while preserving the full LIBERTY of choice by patients, and professional liberty of doctors. The best of American medicine, available to the poor, without rationing. That's really, REALLY expensive, for a national health system. Remember, it's only 30% cheaper than the American system, and double or triple the cost of all of the other systems. But it's the only other health system in the world that has the state-of- the-art medicine that Americans have - and the French are on average healthier because the state of the art stuff is only available to the top 50% of Americans who have good insurance. There is a TRADE OFF for French health care's freedom and quality, and that is that it is VERY EXPENSIVE, relative to all of the other systems except ours. Ours is 30% more expensive. Why? First, profit margin of the insurance companies. That isn't there in the French system. Second, the terrible American legal system and the huge cost of malpractice insurance in America. American doctors in some specialities spend a third of their gross revenue on malpractice insurance. In France, that's more like 7%. Those two things account for much of the gap. A third difference is that in America, health care billing is handled by doctors, who have large staffs of administrators to deal with the insurance companies. In France, a doctors office is usually doctors and a receptionist, maybe a prep nurse. They don't HAVE administrative staffs: the patients pay the doctors in cash, and the PATIENTS seek reimbursements, themselves, from the government insurance agency. So French doctors don't bear the administrative costs Americans do. Also, French doctors have no student loan debt, and have been working for about 10 years as paid professional doctors in the public system before they go into private practice, so they don't have the economic pressures on them that young American doctors do. This tends to moderate prices. But finally - the biggest difference between the French system and the Canadian or American system. The French pay a "Social Security Tax" in addition to the income tax. Both the employer and the employee pay matching amounts. We pay Social Security and Medicare tax in America and they pay it in Canada too. In America, the Social Security covers the government retirement stipend and disability insurance, while the Medicare tax partially covers the cost of Medicare (the rest comes from the general fund). The current tax rate for Social Security is 6.2% for the employer and 6.2% for the employee, or 12.4% total, on the first $127,000 or so of WAGES. The current rate for Medicare is 1.45% for the employer and 1.45% for the employee, or 2.9% total, of all WAGES. (Other forms of income are not taxed.) So for an average salaried employee, the total paid all in is 15.3%, half paid by employer, half by employee (and all paid by the self-employed). In Canada, the total paid by employer and employee for the same things, but with that different standard of health care, is 13.884%. Remember, please, that Social Security tax also covers retirements, and that the US and Canadian Social Security retirement system is not intended to be a full pension. In France, the total paid by the employee for medical insurance as described, and for a full retirement pension (which French social security is), is 17.95%, while the employer contribution is 31.4%, for a total of 49.35%. Remember, please, that the system in France provides free school, free college, universal health care, and full pensions for all. And the tax for all of that amounts to 49.35% of the outlays by employers for employees, over three times as much as Americans or Canadians pay. Essentially, three different national philosophies have been applied here, that turn on three vectors: Liberty, Equality, and Security. The Liberty portion essentially means the freedom of the individual to choose. In matters of medicine this means choosing one's doctor and one's level of care. In more general matters of life it means having the economic means to do as one pleases. Taxes reduce general liberty, by taking money away from individuals reducing their choices. Equality refers to the different treatment by the society of the very rich, the very poor, the people in between, the upper half and the lower half. And Security refers to the freedom from fear - fear of not being able to educate one's self and get a job, fear of losing one's home if unemployed, fear of being able to provide for one's kid, fear of illness, and fear of being destitute in old age, among other things. Canada, the USA and the French, all democracies, have made different choices in these regards. The Americans have maximized personal liberty, insofar as we have the lowest taxes of the three countries. We have not maximized liberty of choice in health care, but we have considered the liberty of insurance companies to set the terms of their business and make private profits to be a paramount interest. We have also considered the liberty to sue, and of juries to decide what the plaintiff is due, to be very important. The Canadians have chosen to minimize personal liberty. In order to have the equality of medical treatment within the country, at low cost, the Canadians have chosen to compel all doctors to operate within the national system, and to limit what patients can choose, to ration care. This makes Canadian health care available to all, but of visibly poorer quality than the top half of America receives. Canadians in general pay higher taxes, but they pay a lot less, in the mix, for health care. The French have chosen to maximize equality and security, and liberty in the realm of medical care (and university attendance), but at the cost of more general liberty. Everybody in France gets the health care available to the top fifth of the USA. Everybody has a pension. Everybody has a free college education. And if unemployed, support payments mean that nobody loses their home and is out on the street with kids. That security comes at the price of very high taxes. So there is less left over for the French to do other things with, like buy clothes and sports cars and computer stuff, entertainment, etc. Canadian health care is equal, cheap, restrictive, and unacceptably bad to the top half of Americans and all of the French. French health care is as good as top shelf American health care, but only the top half of Americans have access to it. The bottom half of Americans are worse off than Canadians. The French have the best health care in the world, and everybody has full access to it - and that means that the French don't have as much disposable income for other stuff as Americans or Canadians. The French have decided that security of education, housing, health care and retirement (and of the nation itself, and energy security) are "alpha" priorities that are more important than individual priorities, so they society is taxed at a rate that is limited by law to be no more than 50% of an individual's income (though the sales tax: the VAT, of 20%, means that that remaining disposable income is itself taxed at a rate of between 10 and 20% when the money is spent). It is very expensive to give everybody in a major country an equal shot at an education, equal health care at American levels (rounding to the TOP, as opposed to going Canadian style and providing equal, lower-quality care), and retirement pensions. The French have made a choice. The Canadians have made one. The Americans have made a third. Of the three, I think the French have chosen most wisely, though being an upper tier American I have more personal liberty living in the USA than I would in France, because I have quite a bit more disposable income available to do with as I please here than I would in France.
Because, thanks to nuclear weapons, the military is really about as useless as a tit on a bull, when you get right down to the truth. But education is necessary to grow the GDP and reduce crime, health care is necessary for productivity, and old age pensions through social security are necessary to avoid starvation and mass suffering. That's why. Universal public education, Medicare and Social Security are actually NECESSARY to the health of the US economy and the survival and well-being of the whole population. The US military is a massive white elephant. Nuclear weapons secure the homeland, and playing Risk with the world is fun for elites, but is not as NECESSARY as education, health care and pensions. That's why. Obviously we're not going to get rid of the military. Americans like a big military, and we like being the world hegemon. So we're never going to free up enough money to do everything I'd like to see done. But if Trump succeeds in Korea and in Syria, we can do a lot LESS of what we're doing that we are, and save SOME money, and maybe get towards a balanced budget, instead of hurtling along on high speed towards the NEXT currency inflation jubilee.
Well, I figured if you would flippantly accept the findings of 13 Democrats, you'd have no qualms about rejecting the findings of 13 Republicans.
They would have to cut everything and double taxes to pay for it. And they'd still have a $40 billion shortfall. Sure, without tort reform, and without actually having public doctors (as opposed to private doctors paying malpractice and student debt, and needing excessive salaries to cover all of those expenses). To get universal care at a price will indeed require higher taxes, but not triple the current tax burden a la California. California did not consider comprehensive tort and insurance reform, or public doctors. It considered simply taking the current system, with all of its excesses, and funding that through the state. To get universal health care of high quality at an affordable price, the legal profession's stranglehold on policy would have to be broken. Nobody talks about that. And they don't seem likely to.
It's called personal responsibility. If all else fails, there's family friends, community, church, etc. Here's your version: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-285330
Please..... I don't believe that there is any political motivation behind this investigation. That is as clear a statement as I can make. The investigation will reach whatever conclusion the facts deliver. I trust that those who committed crimes will be punished and that the punishment will be fair.
Which they supplement with private insurance since the government only pays about 70% of your bill. Hey. Just think of it as a massive deductible. That allows the French government to claim they spend less on healthcare. "The doctors who work for the state hospitals are, of course, on the government payroll And they make shit for wages, given that their schooling was paid for, the government handles their malpractice suits, and they have almost no overhead.
Because our private insurance pays close to 100% of the cost vs. 70% in the French system.
schooling Here we are Brave new world Like someThing ouT of aliens No Thank you If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Well, then there's no debating you, since it's obvious that's all it is.
Back then, they had twice the crime rate we have. Things were not good.
No. Because in the US our insurance doesn't cover anywhere close to 100%. Everybody on this thread can attest to that. Beyond that, huge numbers of Americans don't have insurance, or don't have insurance that covers anything but the most critical things. Our life expectancy is shorter, or infant mortality rate is higher. The French have medical care that is as good as ours is medically, and everybody in the country is covered by it. That is a HUGE improvement over the US situation. We should adopt the French system, and impose the taxes to pay for it. To start, Social Security should touch every dollar of income, not just the income of the working and middle class. That would pay for a great deal.
"Shit for wages"? The average French General Practitioner, in 2016, made $92,000 per year (vs. $161,000 per year for a US GP), and the average specialist made $149,000 per year, (vs. $230,000 per year for US specialists). Yes, French doctors make substantially less money, and charge substantially lower fees. True, they don't have administrative overhead, they don't have big malpractice insurance bills, and they don't have student loans. In the US, doctors spend 55 cents on the dollar on overhead. In France, that number is about 17% (they do need offices, and they do carry malpractice insurance, but the better legal system makes it cost less than a third as in the USA). So, that American specialist makes $230,000 a year, spends $126,500 of that on overhead, and takes home (before taxes) $103,500. His French counterpart makes $149,000 per year, spends $25,330 on overhead, and takes home (before taxes) $123,670. The French doctor pays a lot more in taxes than the American doctor, and for those taxes he got a free education, gets health insurance coverage, and has a full retirement, and full disability should something happen to him. The American doctor, takes home a little bit more pay, after taxes, but that extra pay does not cover the cost of his own education, health insurance and retirement planning. In truth, American doctors and French doctors both enjoy a very good standard of living, on average, but American doctors are a lot more stressed out because we have a crappy legal system, a crappy regulatory system, a crappy insurance system, a crappy college financing system, a crappy health care financing system, and a crappy retirement system. It is true that the American system produces a lot more jobs for a lot more non-medical middlemen, and produces large profits for the investor class; the French system does not. That's where the difference really lies. American medicine produces a big stream of profits to private investors. French medicine produces a big stream of revenue to the government...which uses the revenue mostly on education, health care and retirement benefits, as is just exactly right.
Fine by me, provided those who pay more in get more out. Which is not the case today.
And you credit Medicaid for the reduction? Based on what? Feelings?
Yeah it is. I have paid in the max for many, many years, and therefore I will get the max benefit out. Those who paid in less don't get the same level of benefit. Obviously you have to cap the payment out at some level, because taxes ARE meant to be redistributive, so that the people at the bottom can have it better and not live in poverty. That's basically the whole point: there's a level below which people should not be allowed to fall, a safety net. Retirement should be a bit above the middle of the middle, nothing more than that. Paying in to get paid out is a way it was sold. Really it's just a tax and redistribution, for the benefit of most. We should be much more honest about these things.
You credited something else as being "better" that wasn't really better at all, and you did it based on your feelings. I pointed out a flaw.
Fine. Then cap the tax at some level.
No I didn't. I made no judgement. I simply stated the way it was.
And so did I. Double the crime back then. The way it was didn't work so well.
No, because that means that those at higher income do not bear the same redistributive burden, as a percentage of their wealth, as those down the scale.
What does one have to do with the other?
Redistributive burden as a percentage of their wealth? What is that, some new communist formula for failure? Social Security is a program by which everyone puts in a certain percentage of their income up to a cap, and everyone receives a certain amount of money after they retire, no matter how wealthy they are. The amount of money you receive every month is related to how much you put in. If you want to raise one, then I say raise the other. Our income tax system is already a huge redistributive burden.
You - What does one have to do with the other? Your original quote - "Prior to 1986 they had to rely on their own savings, family, friends, community and church for help. And back then nobody was too keen on helping some lazy-assed, drug using, high school dropout, never- worked-a -day-in-their-lives, just-out-of-prison, irresponsible single person with 8 kids. Meaning, people back then had their shit together and participated in society, never knowing when they might need that society to help them out during hard times." "Back then" was 1985. I remember 1985 - Detroit and DC and Newark and South Central, and so on and so on. People did not have their shit together, at all, in 1985. The country was overrun with crime, poverty was terrible. Things are better today, in every vector I can think of. I am generally disputing the thrust of your assertion: that things were better before stronger welfare was enacted, because (poor) people had to rely on other (poor) people, and so they had their shit together more. No, they didn't. Welfare expansion has greatly improved America from the rat rodeo it was back then. It was much easier to get yourself casually murdered back then, drugs were rampant and out of control BECAUSE more people were depressed and living on the edge of nothing, and that wrecks them and they self-medicate. Fact is, stronger welfare improved everything: lower crime, less death, longer lives. I deny the narrative that it was better, in ANY way whatever, before we spent more on welfare. It was worse in every measurable way. Wealth redistribution through taxation and welfare, in all vectors, including universal public education, college grants, expanded food stamps, extended unemployment benefits - every single one of those programs that conservatives all hate - has improved America. Lives are longer, the chances of getting murdered or raped are far, far lower, the cities are not festering shitholes on the verge of rioting. Welfare works. Public education works. Wealth redistribution works. Conservatives have always been wrong about this. Conservatives are RIGHT about deregulation of business. They are RIGHT about the need for forward engagement in the world. They are RIGHT about the need to control the borders. They are RIGHT about the need to have a flatter tax code. But when it comes to social services, they don't get it, and probably never will. You seem to remember 1985 as a time when people had their shit together, and that things got WORSE after that BECAUSE OF greater welfare. That's not what I remember. At all.
No. It's the formula for fairness.
Not "in 1985". In the years prior to 1986. People were much less reliant on the government. I said nothing about crime or poverty. "Things are better today, in every vector I can think of." Breakdown of the family? Out-of- wedlock births? People on welfare/food stamps/Social Security Disability/WIC/federal housing? Illegal immigration?
Comments (56 - 62) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestfor citing a senior White House official “who doesn’t exist”
#16. To: Vicomte13 (#14)
I think it is a discussion for today.
#17. To: Jameson (#12)
The ACA did remove lifetime maximums, pre-existing conditions, and allowed kids to stay on their parents' plan
#18. To: Jameson (#0)
Trump attacked “the 13 Angry Democrats” working for Robert S. Mueller III, apparently referring to prior party registration. But Mueller himself is a Republican ...
#19. To: misterwhite (#17)
Which drove up the cost of health insurance for everyone.
#20. To: misterwhite (#18)
Can Trump expect a fair investigation from this group?
#21. To: Jameson (#0)
He called for “pressure on the Democrats to end the horrible law that separates children from there [sic] parents once they cross the Border into the U.S.” There is no such law ...
#22. To: Jameson (#20)
Can Trump expect a fair investigation from this group?
Yes, of course.
#23. To: misterwhite (#22)
But if all the investigators were registered Republicans, you'd have been screaming "Coverup!" from day one.
#24. To: Jameson (#19)
Medicine for profit has been a terrible failure.
#25. To: misterwhite (#24)
the poor. Fuck' em. Get a job that offers health insurance.
#26. To: Jameson (#25)
the poor. Fuck' em.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#27. To: Vicomte13 (#14)
Most of it should be free, paid for by the government
#28. To: Vicomte13 (#14)
There should not a two tier system of health care for workers and crappy barely-cared-for-at-all care for the poor.
#29. To: Vicomte13 (#14)
I think that the acceptance of Medicare should be a requirement of holding a license, and that doctors who refuse to receive the public and be paid public insurance should not be allowed to practice medicine at all.
#30. To: Jameson (#16)
How does the French system differ from the Canadians'?
#31. To: misterwhite (#29)
Why not cut all the social programs, including education, instead of the military?
#32. To: Jameson (#23)
Don't try to put words in my mouth.
#33. To: misterwhite (#29)
California, by the way, looked into universal health care. Cost? $400 billion. California budget? $183 billion.
#34. To: Jameson (#25)
Like the elderly, or the disabled, or children, or the homeless vets....
#35. To: misterwhite (#32)
flippantly accept
#36. To: Vicomte13 (#30)
In France everybody has health insurance
#37. To: Vicomte13 (#30)
Ours is 30% more expensive. Why?
#38. To: Vicomte13 (#14)
boris
#39. To: Jameson (#35)
I don't believe that there is any political motivation behind this investigation.
#40. To: misterwhite (#28)
Meaning, people back then had their shit together and participated in society, never knowing when they might need that society to help them out during hard times.
#41. To: misterwhite (#37)
Because our private insurance pays close to 100% of the cost vs. 70% in the French system.
#42. To: misterwhite (#36)
And they make shit for wages, given that their schooling was paid for, the government handles their malpractice suits, and they have almost no overhead.
#43. To: Vicomte13 (#41)
To start, Social Security should touch every dollar of income
#44. To: Vicomte13 (#40)
Back then, they had twice the crime rate we have.
#45. To: misterwhite (#43)
Fine by me, provided those who pay more in get more out. Which is not the case today.
#46. To: misterwhite (#44)
And you credit Medicaid for the reduction? Based on what? Feelings?
#47. To: Vicomte13 (#45)
Obviously you have to cap the payment out at some level,
#48. To: Vicomte13 (#46)
You credited something else as being "better"
#49. To: misterwhite (#48)
I simply stated the way it was.
#50. To: misterwhite (#47)
Fine. Then cap the tax at some level.
#51. To: Vicomte13 (#49)
Double the crime back then. The way it was didn't work so well.
#52. To: Vicomte13 (#50)
No, because that means that those at higher income do not bear the same redistributive burden, as a percentage of their wealth,, as a percentage of their wealth, as those down the scale.
#53. To: misterwhite (#51)
Me - Double the crime back then. The way it was didn't work so well.
#54. To: misterwhite (#52)
Redistributive burden as a percentage of their wealth? What is that, some new communist formula for failure?
#55. To: Vicomte13 (#53)
(Edited)
People did not have their shit together, at all, in 1985.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]