Grand Admiral Thrawn
United States
New Jersey
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/30/opinions/trump-palace-guards-m...

shake
3 
 Thumb up
0.10
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
"The US Secret Service remains the envy of governments around the world."

gulp
I've got them pegged as party-boys who might have blown the brains of a President out accidentally.

But the rest glides under hand without splinter.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Stiles
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Shaman
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
utoption2 wrote:
einsteinidahosu wrote:

Worse than trying starting a 'war' (of words or raising tensions) with Russia?

Worse than creating a disaster called ACA?

Why I am not surprised that this non-News came from Commie-News-Network. I mean really, is there really nothing else to report on?


Yes.

And that's beyond your wild misrepresentation of the situation with Russia.

~~~

Also, the right's alting of the MSM is always amazing too me. No wonder they're so full of crazy ideas when they go out of their way to put on blinders.
5 
 Thumb up
50.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
einsteinidahosu wrote:


Great. The Donald wants his own little Praetorian Guard, loyal to him and not under any Government oversight. Comes under the heading "Recipe for Disaster"
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Stiles
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Shaman
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
utoption2 wrote:
windsagio wrote:
utoption2 wrote:
einsteinidahosu wrote:

Worse than trying starting a 'war' (of words or raising tensions) with Russia?

Worse than creating a disaster called ACA?

Why I am not surprised that this non-News came from Commie-News-Network. I mean really, is there really nothing else to report on?


Yes.

And that's beyond your wild misrepresentation of the situation with Russia.

~~~


Also,

Also, the right's alting of the MSM is always amazing too me. No wonder they're so full of crazy ideas when they go out of their way to put on blinders.


Some of what I said, Mike, wasn't bullshit! :kiss: Tensions with Russia have been raised.

But, you caught me. LOL!

Not sure what 'alting' means?

Also, my debt to you is now cleared.


<3


I make up terms, it's a bad habit. I'm referring to the perceived tendency (perceived by me) to treat the msm as if it is an alternative news source; you treating CNN (which plenty on the left think of as hopelessly corporatist) and calling it "Commie" seems like a way that you don't have to acknowledge what it says. Only the idealogically correct news sources are good.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
utoption2 wrote:
einsteinidahosu wrote:


Worse than creating a disaster called ACA?


3 million kids have healthcare now that didn't have it before. Kids who have absolutely no control over their situation. If you don't care about that, fuck you and everyone else who doesn't.

Callous assholes.
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shampoo4you wrote:
utoption2 wrote:
einsteinidahosu wrote:


Worse than creating a disaster called ACA?


3 million kids have healthcare now that didn't have it before. Kids who have absolutely no control over their situation. If you don't care about that, fuck you and everyone else who doesn't.

Callous assholes.


So.... think of the children? Is that where we went?

Look, broken with more getting coverage is better than broken without people getting coverage, but it's still broken. In fact, the parts that are broken are worse than before because insurance is even further embedded in the process and is now required by law. This will ensure that healthcare costs will increase as a percentage of GDP.

But rather than thinking that maybe there was a way to address the poor parts of our health coverage like pre-existing conditions without forcing people to be taxed if they choose a different way to be covered.... think of the children.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:
utoption2 wrote:
einsteinidahosu wrote:


Worse than creating a disaster called ACA?


3 million kids have healthcare now that didn't have it before. Kids who have absolutely no control over their situation. If you don't care about that, fuck you and everyone else who doesn't.

Callous assholes.


So.... think of the children? Is that where we went?

Look, broken with more getting coverage is better than broken without people getting coverage, but it's still broken. In fact, the parts that are broken are worse than before because insurance is even further embedded in the process and is now required by law. This will ensure that healthcare costs will increase as a percentage of GDP.

But rather than thinking that maybe there was a way to address the poor parts of our health coverage like pre-existing conditions without forcing people to be taxed if they choose a different way to be covered.... think of the children.


Obamacare is not a great solution, but it's still way better than doing nothing. Million and millions more are insured now, including children, who again have no control over their situation and get punished by our previous insane and terrible system through no fault of their own.

Universal healthcare is the ONLY real solution. Keep in mind that even BEFORE Obamacare, America had the most expensive healthcare, so clearly a freemarket system for healthcare isn't all its cracked up to be, and it LITERALLY KILLS PEOPLE by denying them treatment and preventative care they need but can't afford.
12 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
utoption2 wrote:
einsteinidahosu wrote:

Worse than trying starting a 'war' (of words or raising tensions) with Russia?

Worse than creating a disaster called ACA?

Why I am not surprised that this non-News came from Commie-News-Network. I mean really, is there really nothing else to report on?


Okay Walter, off to another dance.

You seem to be saying we should ignore poor decisions by Trump (the incoming president) should not be pursued because Obama (the outgoing president) made worse decisions. Is that truly the standard? That's like arguing the mistakes of one platoon leader in your outfit shouldn't get attention because another lieutenant did something even more stupid. Can't you critique multiple officers concurrently?

As to Russia, there are plenty of folks who consider the behavior of the Kremlin as akin to an act of war. The US Intelligence community seems to be telling us that Russia intentionally engaged itself in hacking operations against the DNC and RNC. More recently, they are telling us that evidence indicates the exact same methodologies were used to penetrate various elements of the US power grid. Why is the president elect so ready to cast off these assertions? Why should Obama make no response?

Is the ACA a disaster? If so, is it purely one of Obama's making? Do you think the American medical system was operating satisfactorily prior to the ACA? If not, what was the GOP offering prior to the ACA? Was the system put in place by Romney truly so bad that it shouldn't be emulated?

The ACA for all it's warts was a massive compromise with too much input from lobbyists and too little input from thoughtful conservatives. We've seen some serious success from single payer systems, especially in Germany and from Romney's experiment. Whatever else is true, it is evident that many of goals of the ACA are important including portability of plans and protection from being denied for pre-existing conditions.

Even if you detest the ACA, it was part of a group effort to solve some serious health care problems. This has little to compare with Trump seeking to bring private security into the White House. Not only does the Secret Service have big problems with this due to the lack of training and protocol but, it smacks of dictatorial powers a la the private army which was the SS. The secret service protects the president as part of it's duties but it is sworn to serve the constitution. Trumps private army would have only Trump to serve without regard to the interests of the American people.

You might be right that ACA was a failure. But private troops in the White House is a sign of totalitarianism which is a different kind of failure entirely.
26 
 Thumb up
1.30
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Stiles
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Shaman
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Since it's been broached now, I've been desperately trying to avoid using the term 'brownshirt' all day, and every time this subject comes up, but I can relax now.

Given his private security has a tendency to rough up protesters, this isn't something anyone should be comfortable with... and it's different from the normal graft.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
windsagio wrote:
Since it's been broached now, I've been desperately trying to avoid using the term 'brownshirt' all day, and every time this subject comes up, but I can relax now.

Given his private security has a tendency to rough up protesters, this isn't something anyone should be comfortable with... and it's different from the normal graft.


This is actually scary. WTF are they thinking to allow him to bring in a private security force beholding to HIM instead of to the U.S.A.?

7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grand Admiral Thrawn
United States
New Jersey
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
utoption2 wrote:
Rulesjd wrote:
utoption2 wrote:
einsteinidahosu wrote:

Worse than trying starting a 'war' (of words or raising tensions) with Russia?

Worse than creating a disaster called ACA?

Why I am not surprised that this non-News came from Commie-News-Network. I mean really, is there really nothing else to report on?


Okay Walter, off to another dance.

You seem to be saying we should ignore poor decisions by Trump (the incoming president) should not be pursued because Obama (the outgoing president) made worse decisions. Is that truly the standard? That's like arguing the mistakes of one platoon leader in your outfit shouldn't get attention because another lieutenant did something even more stupid. Can't you critique multiple officers concurrently?

As to Russia, there are plenty of folks who consider the behavior of the Kremlin as akin to an act of war. The US Intelligence community seems to be telling us that Russia intentionally engaged itself in hacking operations against the DNC and RNC. More recently, they are telling us that evidence indicates the exact same methodologies were used to penetrate various elements of the US power grid. Why is the president elect so ready to cast off these assertions? Why should Obama make no response?

Is the ACA a disaster? If so, is it purely one of Obama's making? Do you think the American medical system was operating satisfactorily prior to the ACA? If not, what was the GOP offering prior to the ACA? Was the system put in place by Romney truly so bad that it shouldn't be emulated?

The ACA for all it's warts was a massive compromise with too much input from lobbyists and too little input from thoughtful conservatives. We've seen some serious success from single payer systems, especially in Germany and from Romney's experiment. Whatever else is true, it is evident that many of goals of the ACA are important including portability of plans and protection from being denied for pre-existing conditions.

Even if you detest the ACA, it was part of a group effort to solve some serious health care problems. This has little to compare with Trump seeking to bring private security into the White House. Not only does the Secret Service have big problems with this due to the lack of training and protocol but, it smacks of dictatorial powers a la the private army which was the SS. The secret service protects the president as part of it's duties but it is sworn to serve the constitution. Trumps private army would have only Trump to serve without regard to the interests of the American people.

You might be right that ACA was a failure. But private troops in the White House is a sign of totalitarianism which is a different kind of failure entirely.


Actually, Les, here's the truth about my position:

1) I need to investigate more about Trump's private army. My post was sarcastic and was a purposeful swipe at CNN. It was childish, I know. I was tired from a personal matter (a friend's breakup etc etc). I would rather see this article in the Washington Post or the Wall Street Journal. I do detest CNN. I 'think' that it is biased and sensationalist.

Good point. Since it is the Interwebz and I can find sources, I will trace this and find the source.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grand Admiral Thrawn
United States
New Jersey
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I found some Politico Articles that are detailed. I have faith that you have more to say than snark on that source. Honestly it's all just a mess. I have hopes for this Administration, but it's less than 1% after he selected Bannon. Talk about bringing the worst of the worst on board. It's like all of the RSP trolls in the White House together. Maybe they'll post memes about SJWs while the economy tanks, who knows? I hope voters can at least see the mess after a few years and not blame it on "liberals" somehow.

Quote:
"The Trump associates say Schiller is expected to become a personal White House aide who would serve as the incoming president’s full-time physical gatekeeper, though he might not be able to offer his boss the wide range of services he has in the past. For instance, federal law prohibits anyone other than law enforcement officers from bringing firearms into federal buildings, and there are even stricter rules about who can carry on the White House grounds or around Secret Service protectees. Schiller had been armed at times early in the campaign, but it’s unclear whether he continued carrying a firearm after Trump was granted Secret Service protection."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/donald-trump-security-...
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/inside-trumps-security...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G Rowls
msg tools
Mostly made up of spare parts and sarcasm! ... HTTP Error 418 I'm a Teapot!
Avatar
mbmb
"there will be a lot of dancing in RSP."

RSP dont dance. Too many left feet apparently!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
einsteinidahosu wrote:
I found some Politico Articles that are detailed. I have faith that you have more to say than snark on that source. Honestly it's all just a mess. I have hopes for this Administration, but it's less than 1% after he selected Bannon. Talk about bringing the worst of the worst on board. It's like all of the RSP trolls in the White House together. Maybe they'll post memes about SJWs while the economy tanks, who knows? I hope voters can at least see the mess after a few years and not blame it on "liberals" somehow.

Quote:
"The Trump associates say Schiller is expected to become a personal White House aide who would serve as the incoming president’s full-time physical gatekeeper, though he might not be able to offer his boss the wide range of services he has in the past. For instance, federal law prohibits anyone other than law enforcement officers from bringing firearms into federal buildings, and there are even stricter rules about who can carry on the White House grounds or around Secret Service protectees. Schiller had been armed at times early in the campaign, but it’s unclear whether he continued carrying a firearm after Trump was granted Secret Service protection."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/donald-trump-security-...
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/inside-trumps-security...


And Trump bringing in his own Sejanus as well. The Praetorian analogy seems to be complete now
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shampoo4you wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:
utoption2 wrote:
einsteinidahosu wrote:


Worse than creating a disaster called ACA?


3 million kids have healthcare now that didn't have it before. Kids who have absolutely no control over their situation. If you don't care about that, fuck you and everyone else who doesn't.

Callous assholes.


So.... think of the children? Is that where we went?

Look, broken with more getting coverage is better than broken without people getting coverage, but it's still broken. In fact, the parts that are broken are worse than before because insurance is even further embedded in the process and is now required by law. This will ensure that healthcare costs will increase as a percentage of GDP.

But rather than thinking that maybe there was a way to address the poor parts of our health coverage like pre-existing conditions without forcing people to be taxed if they choose a different way to be covered.... think of the children.


Obamacare is not a great solution, but it's still way better than doing nothing. Million and millions more are insured now, including children, who again have no control over their situation and get punished by our previous insane and terrible system through no fault of their own.

Universal healthcare is the ONLY real solution. Keep in mind that even BEFORE Obamacare, America had the most expensive healthcare, so clearly a freemarket system for healthcare isn't all its cracked up to be, and it LITERALLY KILLS PEOPLE by denying them treatment and preventative care they need but can't afford.


So the part where I said there would be ways to address the shortcomings of the health system without just going for total government takeover... you missed that? Hm. I thought that was a solid closing line.

You will hear a lot of conservatives complain about government regulation in a monolithic sense, but health care would be the perfect instance of where is a needed solution. Enforce transparency of costs. Don't allow the medical industry and insurance companies to collude and allow prices to spiral because nobody really knows how much anything costs, so both sides just keep layering on surcharge after surcharge. That's the best starting point. There's more than that which would be needed to enact meaningful reform, but this thread isn't about Obama so it's for another thread.

Regulation is not the last resort to cover what the government can't take over. So it would be nice to see it used properly where it's needed.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:


So the part where I said there would be ways to address the shortcomings of the health system without just going for total government takeover... you missed that? Hm. I thought that was a solid closing line.

You will hear a lot of conservatives complain about government regulation in a monolithic sense, but health care would be the perfect instance of where is a needed solution. Enforce transparency of costs. Don't allow the medical industry and insurance companies to collude and allow prices to spiral because nobody really knows how much anything costs, so both sides just keep layering on surcharge after surcharge. That's the best starting point. There's more than that which would be needed to enact meaningful reform, but this thread isn't about Obama so it's for another thread.

Regulation is not the last resort to cover what the government can't take over. So it would be nice to see it used properly where it's needed.


Would you feel safe if the national guard, police, and fire protection forces were all for-profit industries, giving only their best services to the highest paying customers, and leaving the poor to fend for themselves? Of course not. So why are you okay with letting private entities determine healthcare?

(and no, I'm not talking about stuff like plastic surgery unrelated to injury, but I *am* talking about preventative care because preventative care saves money in the long run)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grand Admiral Thrawn
United States
New Jersey
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I get to do passive-aggressive tags too!kiss
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Edwards
United Kingdom
London
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Hey, look! A new thread on why Trump is bad! This could change everything!


Wow Drew that's pretty ballsy. I haven't personally kept a running total of your new threads on why Obama is bad. How many would you think?
9 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Liam
Scotland
flag msg tools
admin
badge
I am BGG's official honey trap
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb


6 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
utoption2 wrote:



Actually, Les, here's the truth about my position:

1) I need to investigate more about Trump's private army. My post was sarcastic and was a purposeful swipe at CNN. It was childish, I know. I was tired from a personal matter (a friend's breakup etc etc). I would rather see this article in the Washington Post or the Wall Street Journal. I do detest CNN. I 'think' that it is biased and sensationalist.

2) I nuanced my ACA statement in a post above. I think that it started off well and in theory, it's not bad. In operation, though, it's really going downhill. (Please see my post above). As for single-payer, I have live with it, benefited from it, and seen people suffer from it. I had the opportunity to debate and discuss the matter with a panel of British politicos including a former Chancellor of the Ex-Chequer. We can take that up in another post or thread.

3) Regarding the Intelligence Community, I distrust it. Not because I am a fan of Alex Jones; just the opposite. I am really not sure that it is unbiased or without its own goals. Personally, I think the current President should let the next President deal with the issue.

4) I am going to surprise everyone. I am not a Trumpist. My views and my stance were made clear in my response to Hibikir. However, post election, I support him and have hopes for his Administration. However, if he fucks up in the first year, he will pay the price in the second. And things, then, will get really interesting and, probably, truly fucked up, and there will be a lot of dancing in RSP.


Nice. I can well understand the temptation to wax hyperbolic here in RSP.

Two things. The "intelligence community" is far too large and varied to be considered remotely monolithic. As with most government agencies, those dealing with intel can become hampered by their own unique cultures and operating paradigms. The CIA and FBI are very different animals as the first is meant to gather and analyze intel on foreign soil (and even to wage limited forms of warfare) whereas the FBI was primarily a Domestic policing agency which only more recently came to the party of intelligence and counter intel. When the two of them agree on any form of analysis, it is worth paying attention.

Trump, I think, fell into a trap when he attacked the intel people over Iraq. He taps into peoples antipathy about the war but, he fails to realize there was no unified position from the big agencies regarding Hussein and WMD's. I've pointed out in other posts that Bush took the unusual step of sending Colin Powell to the UN due to the lack of a position paper from his national security agencies on this topic.

So, while it's always good to consider such things with a grain of salt, it disturbs me greatly that the president elect is so willing to publicly cast doubt on the intelligence agencies and the amount of work they are doing to promote security.

The second point I wanted to address was about CNN in particular and media in general. It's become entirely too fashionable to bash the press and to conflate all forms of press. In my view, the biggest sin of CNN has been it's need to drive ad revenue (actually most news has has become too focused on profit streams which is a departure from earlier norms) and finding something to report 24 hours a day. It's demonstrably clear that MSNBC and certain Fox programs are ideologically aligned. CNN is simply very thin and a bit too salacious IMO.

Having said that, CNN is often a decent jumping off point to look up more detail on a given story. This isn't the first time I've seen reporting about Trumps use of private security. There was even a story last year about responding to a "threat" situation at a rally and disappointment by the secret service about the response of the private security. At the very least, it's possible that presidential security may be impaired (and I don't want to see an assassination of a US President even if I find him particularly vulgar and poorly suited to the job). On the other hand private security enables some form of operating in the shadows which has faintly Nixonian implications.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shampoo4you wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:


So the part where I said there would be ways to address the shortcomings of the health system without just going for total government takeover... you missed that? Hm. I thought that was a solid closing line.

You will hear a lot of conservatives complain about government regulation in a monolithic sense, but health care would be the perfect instance of where is a needed solution. Enforce transparency of costs. Don't allow the medical industry and insurance companies to collude and allow prices to spiral because nobody really knows how much anything costs, so both sides just keep layering on surcharge after surcharge. That's the best starting point. There's more than that which would be needed to enact meaningful reform, but this thread isn't about Obama so it's for another thread.

Regulation is not the last resort to cover what the government can't take over. So it would be nice to see it used properly where it's needed.


Would you feel safe if the national guard, police, and fire protection forces were all for-profit industries, giving only their best services to the highest paying customers, and leaving the poor to fend for themselves? Of course not. So why are you okay with letting private entities determine healthcare?

(and no, I'm not talking about stuff like plastic surgery unrelated to injury, but I *am* talking about preventative care because preventative care saves money in the long run)



Well, by your logic, we shouldn't stop at just paying for healthcare. The government should take full charge of healthcare itself, to make sure that everyone gets the same level of care. We should make all hospitals turn themselves over to the federal government. After all, the VA is the perfect example of what happens when the government gets into the business of providing services.

I have a friend in the UK who has been waiting for four months to get her root canal. She said that while she likes not having to pay at time of service, she also would like to get service. So while I know that my anecdote doesn't qualify as evidence, it does act as a nice way to frame a counter-question. If government takes on healthcare, what is there impetus to keep costs down or to provide the most efficient service?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:


So the part where I said there would be ways to address the shortcomings of the health system without just going for total government takeover... you missed that? Hm. I thought that was a solid closing line.

You will hear a lot of conservatives complain about government regulation in a monolithic sense, but health care would be the perfect instance of where is a needed solution. Enforce transparency of costs. Don't allow the medical industry and insurance companies to collude and allow prices to spiral because nobody really knows how much anything costs, so both sides just keep layering on surcharge after surcharge. That's the best starting point. There's more than that which would be needed to enact meaningful reform, but this thread isn't about Obama so it's for another thread.

Regulation is not the last resort to cover what the government can't take over. So it would be nice to see it used properly where it's needed.


Would you feel safe if the national guard, police, and fire protection forces were all for-profit industries, giving only their best services to the highest paying customers, and leaving the poor to fend for themselves? Of course not. So why are you okay with letting private entities determine healthcare?

(and no, I'm not talking about stuff like plastic surgery unrelated to injury, but I *am* talking about preventative care because preventative care saves money in the long run)



Well, by your logic, we shouldn't stop at just paying for healthcare. The government should take full charge of healthcare itself, to make sure that everyone gets the same level of care. We should make all hospitals turn themselves over to the federal government. After all, the VA is the perfect example of what happens when the government gets into the business of providing services.

I have a friend in the UK who has been waiting for four months to get her root canal. She said that while she likes not having to pay at time of service, she also would like to get service. So while I know that my anecdote doesn't qualify as evidence, it does act as a nice way to frame a counter-question. If government takes on healthcare, what is there impetus to keep costs down or to provide the most efficient service?


The European systems aren't perfect, but how many would actually trade for our pre-ACA or post-ACA systems? Only a very small minority.

Here's an anecdote, my dad has excellent healthcare through his lucrative job at Shell. He had to have surgery on his eye to save it. He gets to the counter, they tell him his plan isn't covered at their hospital and he has to pay up front or no surgery. Mind you, this is emergency surgery he needed THAT DAY. They were basically saying "pay us in full up front or go blind in one eye".

Luckily, my stepmom works for that hospital system and was able to work it out. But that's the American system in a nutshell.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shampoo4you wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:


So the part where I said there would be ways to address the shortcomings of the health system without just going for total government takeover... you missed that? Hm. I thought that was a solid closing line.

You will hear a lot of conservatives complain about government regulation in a monolithic sense, but health care would be the perfect instance of where is a needed solution. Enforce transparency of costs. Don't allow the medical industry and insurance companies to collude and allow prices to spiral because nobody really knows how much anything costs, so both sides just keep layering on surcharge after surcharge. That's the best starting point. There's more than that which would be needed to enact meaningful reform, but this thread isn't about Obama so it's for another thread.

Regulation is not the last resort to cover what the government can't take over. So it would be nice to see it used properly where it's needed.


Would you feel safe if the national guard, police, and fire protection forces were all for-profit industries, giving only their best services to the highest paying customers, and leaving the poor to fend for themselves? Of course not. So why are you okay with letting private entities determine healthcare?

(and no, I'm not talking about stuff like plastic surgery unrelated to injury, but I *am* talking about preventative care because preventative care saves money in the long run)



Well, by your logic, we shouldn't stop at just paying for healthcare. The government should take full charge of healthcare itself, to make sure that everyone gets the same level of care. We should make all hospitals turn themselves over to the federal government. After all, the VA is the perfect example of what happens when the government gets into the business of providing services.

I have a friend in the UK who has been waiting for four months to get her root canal. She said that while she likes not having to pay at time of service, she also would like to get service. So while I know that my anecdote doesn't qualify as evidence, it does act as a nice way to frame a counter-question. If government takes on healthcare, what is there impetus to keep costs down or to provide the most efficient service?


The European systems aren't perfect, but how many would actually trade for our pre-ACA or post-ACA systems? Only a very small minority.

Here's an anecdote, my dad has excellent healthcare through his lucrative job at Shell. He had to have surgery on his eye to save it. He gets to the counter, they tell him his plan isn't covered at their hospital and he has to pay up front or no surgery. Mind you, this is emergency surgery he needed THAT DAY. They were basically saying "pay us in full up front or go blind in one eye".

Luckily, my stepmom works for that hospital system and was able to work it out. But that's the American system in a nutshell.


And like you said about the Euro model, the American system is far from perfect as well. But you are working under the assumption that just because something is broken then it must be taken over by the government is a fallacy along the lines of "Rich people ruin things so we need a resource-based economy." Being the one to identify the problem does not mean your solution is the best one. Reining in a free market system gone amok by allowing a horizontal monopoly does not necessitate a total takeover.

Yes, doing away with pre-existing conditions and getting insurance to the uninsured is better than not. But if it doesn't lower costs while maintaining the level of care we have, then it's just a more benevolent flavor of broken.

I hope everything turned out well with your dad.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:


So the part where I said there would be ways to address the shortcomings of the health system without just going for total government takeover... you missed that? Hm. I thought that was a solid closing line.

You will hear a lot of conservatives complain about government regulation in a monolithic sense, but health care would be the perfect instance of where is a needed solution. Enforce transparency of costs. Don't allow the medical industry and insurance companies to collude and allow prices to spiral because nobody really knows how much anything costs, so both sides just keep layering on surcharge after surcharge. That's the best starting point. There's more than that which would be needed to enact meaningful reform, but this thread isn't about Obama so it's for another thread.

Regulation is not the last resort to cover what the government can't take over. So it would be nice to see it used properly where it's needed.


Would you feel safe if the national guard, police, and fire protection forces were all for-profit industries, giving only their best services to the highest paying customers, and leaving the poor to fend for themselves? Of course not. So why are you okay with letting private entities determine healthcare?

(and no, I'm not talking about stuff like plastic surgery unrelated to injury, but I *am* talking about preventative care because preventative care saves money in the long run)



Well, by your logic, we shouldn't stop at just paying for healthcare. The government should take full charge of healthcare itself, to make sure that everyone gets the same level of care. We should make all hospitals turn themselves over to the federal government. After all, the VA is the perfect example of what happens when the government gets into the business of providing services.

I have a friend in the UK who has been waiting for four months to get her root canal. She said that while she likes not having to pay at time of service, she also would like to get service. So while I know that my anecdote doesn't qualify as evidence, it does act as a nice way to frame a counter-question. If government takes on healthcare, what is there impetus to keep costs down or to provide the most efficient service?


The European systems aren't perfect, but how many would actually trade for our pre-ACA or post-ACA systems? Only a very small minority.

Here's an anecdote, my dad has excellent healthcare through his lucrative job at Shell. He had to have surgery on his eye to save it. He gets to the counter, they tell him his plan isn't covered at their hospital and he has to pay up front or no surgery. Mind you, this is emergency surgery he needed THAT DAY. They were basically saying "pay us in full up front or go blind in one eye".

Luckily, my stepmom works for that hospital system and was able to work it out. But that's the American system in a nutshell.


And like you said about the Euro model, the American system is far from perfect as well. But you are working under the assumption that just because something is broken then it must be taken over by the government is a fallacy along the lines of "Rich people ruin things so we need a resource-based economy." Being the one to identify the problem does not mean your solution is the best one. Reining in a free market system gone amok by allowing a horizontal monopoly does not necessitate a total takeover.

Yes, doing away with pre-existing conditions and getting insurance to the uninsured is better than not. But if it doesn't lower costs while maintaining the level of care we have, then it's just a more benevolent flavor of broken.

I hope everything turned out well with your dad.


I'm going to continue to fight for and support healthcare systems that help people regardless of their circumstance, like the millions of children that live in this country and have no choice over what healthcare provider their parents have (or don't have).

Healthcare should be a right, not a privilege, full stop.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.